What Does Israel Think of US-Iran Ceasefire Breakdown?

Summary

Podcast Summary: Amanpour | "What Does Israel Think of US-Iran Ceasefire Breakdown?"

Date: July 15, 2026
Host: Christiane Amanpour (CNN International)
Featured Guests: Ophir Falk (Foreign Policy Adviser to Israeli PM Netanyahu), Leslie Vinjamuri (Chicago Council on Global Affairs), Lucy Schiller (author, Aging Out)

---

Episode Overview

This episode investigates the state of US-Israel alignment as the US-Iran ceasefire breaks down, focusing on Israel’s strategic priorities, public and governmental rifts over Iran and Lebanon, and how shifting US public opinion is affecting the special relationship between the countries. Key guests, including Ophir Falk and Leslie Vinjamuri, weigh in with insider and analytical perspectives, while later segments address elder care in the US and the Venezuelan earthquake crisis.

---

Main Discussion: US-Israel-Iran Relations

1. Israeli Perspective on US-Iran Strategy

Guests: Christiane Amanpour, Ophir Falk
Timestamps: 00:15–05:41

• US-Israel partnership:
  Ophir Falk: “America has no greater ally in the world than Israel, and Israel has no greater ally than the United States.” (00:08)
• Shared objective:
  Both the US and Israel’s top priority is preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
  Falk: “If President Trump thinks that that can be achieved by negotiations, great. But deal or no deal, the prime minister has made clear that Iran will never have nuclear bombs as long as he is Prime Minister.” (03:05)
• Amanpour’s challenge:
  Amanpour presses on whether a return to “full blown conflict” is actually preferable for Israel compared to an unsatisfactory deal.
  Falk stresses Israeli skepticism of negotiations and focus on hard power and deterrence:

  “Deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear bombs.” (05:19)

Notable Quote

• Falk: “Now the world can see how Iran is blackmailing the world with the Strait of Hormuz. You could only imagine what they would do if they had nuclear bombs.” (04:09)

---

2. Regime Change Ambiguity & Lebanon Negotiations

Timestamps: 06:43–15:13

Regime Change as a (Disavowed) Goal

• Amanpour points to media reports and leaks suggesting Israel, and specifically Netanyahu, pushed not just for military destruction of Iran’s nuclear program but regime change, at one point discussing with Trump the possibility of returning former president Ahmadinejad to power.
• Falk repeatedly distances himself from direct involvement and Israeli governmental ownership of “regime change” as an explicit policy:

  “Regime change was never defined as the goal. The goal was to remove the existential threat posed by the Ayatollah regime with their nuclear capabilities…” (09:54)

Lebanon: Historic Agreement

• Falk announces a new framework agreement brokered by the US—specifically by Secretary Rubio—between Israel and Lebanon. For the first time, Lebanon recognizes Israeli sovereignty and agrees to a Hezbollah-free, demilitarized southern Lebanon.
  • “We reached an historic framework agreement whereby, for the first time in 45 years, Lebanon recognizes Israel's sovereignty and agrees that Lebanon has to be free of Hezbollah.” (12:00)
• Withdrawal vs. Redeployment:
  Amanpour presses on semantics: US says “withdrawal”; Falk prefers “redeploy” but concedes forces will leave pilot areas to test Lebanon's ability to disarm Hezbollah.
  • “The word withdraw is never mentioned…” (15:02)
  • Amanpour: “By definition…withdrawing from those areas. So we can go on and be semantic about it.” (15:13)

Memorable Moment

Falk underlines the lesson from October 7, 2023: “we cannot have genocidal terrorist organizations or regimes anywhere near our border. Not in the south with Hamas and not in the north with Hezbollah.” (13:33)

---

3. US-Israel Relationship & American Public Opinion

Timestamps: 16:22–20:17

• Close government ties, but public rift:
  Falk insists publicly that “we are true partners in war and true partners in peace,” and that the governmental and military alliance has “never been better." (16:22)
• Waning support:
  Amanpour notes US support for Israel at the public level is "plummeting" post-Gaza, asking if the Israeli government needs to recalibrate.
  • Falk: “All we can do is continue to tell the truth, to win the war, win the peace and to continue to tell the truth.” (16:22)
• Settler violence controversy:
  Amanpour challenges Falk on recent incidents involving US Congressman Ro Khanna in the West Bank, and a killing of a Palestinian by a settler. Falk denies wrongdoing by settlers and claims, “the crime level in Judea and Samaria is much lower than it is in London where you're sitting right now.” (17:43)
  • Amanpour: “Let me ask you this then. You say they're the most law abiding. You know that a Palestinian was killed last year by a settler… Despite all the evidence, he has not been indicted by Israeli authorities.” (18:37)
  • Falk: “Anybody who breaks the law is brought to justice… The fact that you're bringing something from a year ago tells a big story.” (19:31)

Notable Exchange

Amanpour's persistent questioning about actual regime change goals, withdrawal semantics, and accountability for West Bank violence highlights both journalistic rigor and Israel’s messaging posture.

---

Expert Analysis: US Strategy, the Strait of Hormuz & Allies

Guest: Leslie Vinjamuri
Timestamps: 22:15–32:50

4. US Approach to Iran and Regional Strategy

• "A lot of disruption, chaos and lack of a clear strategic plan," Vinjamuri says, summarizing current US policy (24:40).
• Initial stated goals (regime change, nuclear program) have narrowed to control and leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
• Vinjamuri emphasizes the public’s lack of appetite for regime change and unease with both the US and Israeli courses of action.
  • “Americans have almost no appetite. Most Americans for regime change. And that goes back a very long way.” (23:14)
• The existing naval blockade is seen as a tool for leverage, not for war termination.
• On Iran’s internal chaos and split between hardliners and negotiators, she suggests Trump is leveraging these divisions rather than offering a strategic framework.
  • “For him, this is, quite frankly, bread and butter tactics.” (26:38)

Notable Quote

• Vinjamuri: “The tragic thing for the people of Iran is now we're listening to the US President threaten to hit power plants, civilian infrastructure, I mean, things that are far beyond the bounds of anything approaching adherence to international humanitarian law.” (26:38)

5. Global Alliances & Strategic Drift

• NATO & European trust: Growing unease and self-sufficiency sentiment among America’s NATO partners.
  • “Europe has to bide its time, spend more, build more, keep America in, but play that long term game also, which is to be able to be truly independent.” (30:42)
• US officials’ mixed messages on whether European defense independence is desired or feared.

---

Special Segment: Elder Care in the United States

Host: Hari Srinivasan
Guest: Lucy Schiller (Author, "Aging Out")
Timestamps: 39:29–53:42

6. The Challenge of Aging in America

• Realities of elder care: Over 80% of seniors rely on family for care; assisted living and nursing homes are prohibitively expensive.
  • “The national median cost for a semi private room in a nursing home was $110,000 a year in 2025.” (42:39)
• Industry overview: “Medicare does not cover long term care… and with assisted living, you have to go what's called private pay.” (47:05)
• Economic and social disparities: Class and race heavily influence elder care access and outcomes.
  • “Your class really, really, really influences your experience as an older person.” (49:49)
• Policy suggestions: Universal healthcare and intergenerational housing are highlighted as ideas the US could adopt to improve aging outcomes.

Notable Quote

Schiller: “Trying to think about dissolving walls between older people and younger is something to really think through, particularly as younger people… have really been steeped in, I would say, a lot of anti old person rhetoric for many years now.” (53:38)

---

Additional Reporting: Venezuela Earthquake Aftermath

Contributor: Stefano Pozebon
Timestamp: 33:17–38:07

• Highlights devastation in Venezuela following twin earthquakes, lack of effective government response, and resulting public anger.

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Ophir Falk: “Deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear bombs.” (05:19)
• Leslie Vinjamuri: “It’s a lot of disruption, chaos and lack of a clear strategic plan.” (24:40)
• Lucy Schiller: “It’s a huge amount of work just being an older person and needing that level of help.” (42:09)
• Amanpour to Falk (on regime change): “Why do you think, Mr. Falk, that the prime minister insisted on this plan, which as we now know, completely failed, and most people believed it was a farce from the beginning?” (09:24)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:15 – US-Israel common front on Iran, Falk interview begins
• 05:41 – Amanpour presses on regime change as a possible Israeli aim
• 12:00 – Announcement of US-brokered Lebanon agreement
• 16:22 – Shifts in US public opinion about Israel
• 22:15 – Leslie Vinjamuri on chaos in US foreign policy
• 39:29 – Elder care realities segment with Lucy Schiller
• 33:17 – Venezuela earthquake reporting

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a multifaceted exploration of current Middle East tensions, Israel’s objectives and diplomatic maneuvering, US-ally dynamics, and the burdensome nature of elder care in the US. Christiane Amanpour’s incisive questioning draws out tensions and ambiguities from Israeli and US policy advisers, while supplementary segments ensure a holistic, global affairs perspective.

---

For listeners seeking to understand the fragmentation of US-Israel policy coordination, the risks of escalation with Iran, or the real-world impacts of policy on public opinion and vulnerable populations, this episode delivers clear-eyed analysis and diverse expert perspective.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.

[Ophir Falk]

America has no greater ally in the world than Israel, and Israel has no greater ally than the United States.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Israel and the United States launched the war on Iran together, but are they still aligned on where it's headed? I speak to Ophir Falk, foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

[Ophir Falk]

Then we're going to knock out all their power plants, we're going to knock out all their bridges, unless they get to the table and negotiate.

[Christiane Amanpour]

As the battle for Hormuz intensifies again, can allies trust a mercurial America? Leslie Vinjamuri, the head of the Chicago Council on Global affairs, joins me also. Three weeks after a devastating double earthquake in Venezuela, the government remains under fire for its response. Correspondent Stefano Porziban reports from La Guayra.

[Lucy Schiller]

And it's also, I would say, a huge amount of work just being an

[Christiane Amanpour]

older person growing old in America. Hari Srinivasan speaks to Lucy Schiller about her new book, aging Out. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. America launched multiple strikes on Iran this morning, another in a wave of attacks over the past several days. And by reimposing its naval blockade, Washington is resuming its efforts to force Iran back to the negotiating table by threatening its economy. The US Central Command claims the assaults, quote, further degraded Iran's ability to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. More than 30 civilians have been killed in recent strikes, the Tehran government said today, and score more injured. Iran responded, though, launching multiple drone and missile strikes on US Military assets in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan just across the border. Israel is watching all of this and increasingly at odds with the White House over Iran's strategy. President Trump has told the government to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and Syria. And now the State Department says that after two days of brokering talks in Rome, Israel is expected to begin making withdrawals from southern Lebanon. This is all a major test for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he heads to national elections in late October. It would be the first election since the October 7 Hamas attacks. For more on all of this, let's bring in Ophir Falk. He's a key foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he's joining us from Jerusalem. Welcome to the program, Mr. Falk. Let me start by asking you about Iran. How much does the Israeli government go along with Mr. Trump's efforts to make peace with Iran?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, thank you for having me, Christine. First of all, we have a common goal. America and Israel have a common goal, that Iran will never have nuclear capabilities, it will never have a nuclear bomb. If President Trump thinks that that can be achieved by negotiations, great. But deal or no deal, the prime minister has made clear that Iran will never have nuclear bombs as long as he is Prime Minister.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Mr. Falk, I will just say again and again that I think everybody believes that. The whole world believes that. The thing is which I wonder which worries you is that President Trump at the moment is not so much focusing on the nuclear picture, but much more, of course, on the immediate issue, which is the Strait of Hormuz. Where does the prime minister stand on all of this? Let me, let me just say, if a deal is reached, according to the New York Times, a return to full blown conflict is widely seen as preferable to many Israeli military and government officials. Is that the case?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, the president and the prime Minister have made it absolutely crystal clear that the number one objective is for Iran not to have nuclear bombs. Now the world can see how Iran is blackmailing the world with the strays, with the homose strays. You could only imagine what they would do if they had nuclear bombs. They would blackmail the world and there would be very little that the world could do about it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me play this soundbite from Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier this week when he said Israel was ready for anything.

[Ophir Falk]

We are prepared for any scenario.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I can say one thing, actually, I will say this to the leaders of Iran.

[Ophir Falk]

Do not count on it being quiet if you attack us. Do not count on a rerun, because it would not be a rerun which

[Christiane Amanpour]

was already powerful enough.

[Ophir Falk]

This will be a different event, much more powerful.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Can I ask you, Mr. Falk, since you are a key foreign policy adviser to the prime Minister, after all these months of this war, what more do you think Israel or the United States or combined can and would do? Have you in fact, tried everything or haven't you?

[Ophir Falk]

While we have degraded them significantly, the main objective was to remove the nuclear threat to Israel and to the world at large, to degrade their missile capability and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to step up to the plate and to take their destiny in their own hands. We have made incredible progress, as Professor David Albridge has reported in his studies. We have diminished their nuclear capabilities significantly. We've taken out their 20 top nuclear scientists. We've taken out thousands of their missiles. We've hit their sites harder than ever before. And Iran is weaker than ever before. Now, again, the president thinks he can get all the material out, all the dust out by means of negotiations. Right now he's negotiating with bombs. But at the end of the day, if he can make a deal by negotiating this, great. But deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear bombs.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, so let's talk about the other aspect of this you mentioned, and clearly President Trump mentioned at the beginning of all of this, and so did Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the conditions for the Iranian people to take their destiny in their own hands were being created. That's what they said, the prime minister and the president, and that essentially regime change was a goal. And we know now from so much deep reporting from the New York Times, from Haaretz in Israel, that that has been a very, very key aim of Prime Minister Netanyahu. So you must have read all these articles about some of the planning. And I don't know, I just want to ask you about the plan to bring back the former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and install him instead of the ayatollahs. Tell me, tell me about, well, what do you think of that? Did you advise the prime minister that that would be a good idea?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, I have nothing on that. I have nothing on that. But what I can tell you is our aim was to remove the nuclear threat, diminish the missile threat, and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to take their own destiny in their own hands. It's up to Iranian people. And unfortunately, they've been slaughtered on the streets of tehran. Up to 52,000 innocent Iranian people have been slaughtered by this ayatollah regime. Now, I'm sure that the Iranian people don't want to remove one ayatollah and get another ayatollah. They deserve freedom and we should free or the Iranian people should have freedom.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I think many, many people would agree with you on that. Many Iranians, of course, all Iranians would agree with you on that. However, the methodology is interesting because it's tried and tested and so far it seems to have failed because it is clear from all the reporting that Prime Minister Netanyahu really wanted regime change. He talked to President Trump about it. His Mossad chief went and talked to President Trump about it. And key to this was replacing the ayatollahs with, ayou know, with the former prime minister or the President Ahmadinejad, who, as you well know, was much hated by Israel for his anti Semitism, for his Holocaust denial, and for raising very aggressively the whole nuclear issue and the nuclear threat. So according to Haaretz, people running Israel's Intelligence and military didn't believe in this plan that was brought to them by the Mossad. But they say, quote, because the prime minister stood behind that madness. In further quotes, the subject kept resurfacing. Why do you think, Mr. Falk, that the prime minister insisted on this plan, which, as we now know, completely failed, and most people believed it was a. A farce from the beginning? What was it, do you think, that kept Prime Minister Netanyahu believing that this was a viable option?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, first of all, let's stick to the facts, Christina. Regime change was never defined as the goal. The goal was to remove the existential threat posed by the Ayatollah regime with their nuclear capabilities, degrade their missile capabilities, and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to step up to the plate. The achievements of the war have been incredible. Have been incredible. Iran is weaker than ever before. America and Israel are stronger than ever before. Those are the facts. So let's stick to the facts. Regime change was never the objective. Again, removing the threat of the nuclear threat. And the president and the prime minister are fully aligned on that.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, I understand about removing the nuclear threat, obviously, but clearly this deep reporting suggests that one way to get that done was regime change. So let me ask you, whether you say it was a goal or not, does Israel still believe regime change is important and even possible?

[Ophir Falk]

You can ask me that question three different ways. I have nothing on that. I'm telling you what we have was to remove the existential threat of the nuclear bomb that Iran was rushing towards, to degrade their missile capability and to create the conditions. Now, the achievements have been unprecedented. Iran is weaker than ever. America and Israel are stronger than ever.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. Let's get back then to Lebanon because we know what's been going on with Lebanon. It is actually part of the memorandum of understanding. And after all that's been going on over the last few months between Israel and Hezbollah, there have been U. S. Brokered talks. The latest round in Rome, and now the state Department says that these successful talks between Lebanon and Israel, the government of Lebanon and Israel, will lead to Israel withdrawing troops from southern Lebanon. What more can you give me on that?

[Ophir Falk]

What I can give you on that is that we reach an historic agreement with Lebanon brokered by the United States, brokered by secretary Rubio. We reached an historic framework agreement whereby, for the first time in 45 years, Lebanon recognizes Israel's sovereignty and agrees that Lebanon has to be free of Hezbollah. We have to demilitarize southern Lebanon, and we have to have Hezbollah lay down their Hands. Now we don't have a war with Lebanon. We had a war with Hezbollah that was holding Lebanon hostage for 45 years. And how was that agreement with Lebanon made possible? Because we degraded Hezbollah significantly. We hit them like we've never hit them before. After they attacked us on October 8, 2023, we hit them back. And we took out 8,000 Hezbollah terrorists. They had 150,000 missiles aimed at our city centers, at our civilians. We took that down to a handful of missiles, maybe 8,000 missiles, and we have to take that out, too. We have an agreement now with the Lebanese government, direct talks with the Lebanese government, whereby we agree Hezbollah must lay down its arms and southern Lebanon must be demilitarized.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Right. That's fine from that perspective. But from your perspective, you agree that there will be a withdrawal from southern Lebanon by Israeli forces, per the State Department's latest announcement?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, Israel is fully aware of the need to deploy or redeploy within the agreed areas where we're having a pilot now, we agree to two areas where the Lebanese government can prove their capabilities of dismantling Hezbollah, and we'll have that as a test case. Two different pilots. But if we've learned one thing, our number one lesson from October 7, the October 7 atrocities where Hamas invaded Israel, butchered 1,200 innocent people, raped women, burnt babies alive, if we learned one thing from that lesson, is that we cannot have genocidal terrorist organizations or regimes anywhere near our border. Not in the south with Hamas and not in the north with Hezbollah. And what we're doing today is we're implementing that lesson.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Okay, just to be clear, because it is, you know, quite emotional as well. The IDF says this is specifically about withdrawal. And as you say, the pilot areas are in question there, but the word they're using is withdrawal. So I think that's really interesting. And hopefully that will lead to some peace in the region. Now, let me ask you about the United States and Israel. As you are well aware, there is a lot of tension right now, not just between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu on occasion, but in. Yeah, yeah. What is it?

[Ophir Falk]

I'm just saying the wording that. The wording that. I'm saying the wording that was used, and if you read the framework agreement, the wording that is used is redeploy. The word withdraw is never mentioned there,

[Christiane Amanpour]

which by definition is withdrawing from those areas. So we can go on and be semantic about it, but the United States expects withdrawal, whatever you want to call it. Now, regarding the US And Israel, what Do you make of and how do you recommend Israel resumes its close relationship with the United States? Clearly it, it does have one with the government. But you see what's going on amongst the people of Israel, of the United States. You see the polls that are plummeting in terms of support for Israel like the historic support has been. Do you think there needs to be some action by your government, particularly coming up to elections? Because the whole Israel U. S Relationship is vital, of course. Are there changes to be made to get back on an even keel? Because the whole war, obviously Hamas attacks and then Israel's war on Gaza has changed the dynamic between Israel and the people of the United States.

[Ophir Falk]

Well, I think the president just said that we have never had better relations. The relationship between the president and the prime minister is fantastic. They've met seven times since President Trump was reelected. There was never better coordination or cooperation between the President of the United States and a Prime Minister of Israel or between the armed forces, the armed forces of the Israeli armed forces and the American armed forces. There was never better cooperation or coordination. And we are true partners in war and true partners in peace. Now, yes, we are concerned about drift in public opinion, but all we can do is continue to tell the truth to win the war, win the peace and to continue to tell the truth.

[Christiane Amanpour]

I just need to ask you about, you know, you talk about this close relationship, but we saw what happened with a member of the US Congress who was in the west bank and who was very severely aggressed by not just settlers but, but by members of the idf. President, or rather Prime Minister Netanyahu called the whole thing, you know, juvenile delinquents. But that kind of thing doesn't look good to the American constituency that you're trying to appeal to. Do you think that was a mistake for him to be treated like that, Rohana?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, first of all, again, I think we should stick to the facts. The American embassy or the American Embassy, Israel debunked that story completely. It was all made up. And I don't want to get into American politics. I don't want to get into the left wing, ultra left wing politics in the United States. And what exactly was the objective of this, Congressman? But the story was false. Now the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria are the most law abiding citizens in Israel. Now it's true there are a handful of, of juvenile delinquents. They don't come from Judea and Samaria, they come from other places. And we will not accept any vigilante We're a land of law. Israel is a land of law and we will not accept any vigilante. What is important to understand is that the crime level in Judea and Samaria is much lower than it is in London where you're sitting right now.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, I don't know about the stats, but certainly in Judea and Samaria is what you call the occupied West Bank. But let me ask you this then. You say they're the most law abiding. You know that a Palestinian was killed last year by a settler. His death was caught on camera. He was fatally killed by an Israeli and I'm not even going to put his name out. I don't need to. Despite all the evidence, he has not been indicted by Israeli authorities. And I'm going to have to say that you say it's totally made up and a lie, the story by Ro Khanna. But they have the evidence and their version of it is out there as well. So about the, you know, the person who's accused of murdering a Palestinian, why would they not be held up to the law if you say they're the most law abiding people?

[Ophir Falk]

Well, Israel does hold up the law and they are brought to justice. Anybody who breaks the law is brought to justice. And that incident that you're talking about that I'm not fully familiar with, I'm sure was investigated and will be investigated in full. Just today though, however, just today it's peculiar you're not mentioning that. But just today a Jewish settler from, from Judea and Samaria was stoned, almost stoned to death on her way home driving her car. That happens daily. That happens daily. Palestinian terror against Jewish, against the Jewish community happens daily. The fact that you're bringing an incident from a year ago that has been investigated and will be investigated and if the law was broken, people will be brought to justice. But the fact that you're bringing something from a year ago tells a big story.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Well, no, no, to be fair, Mr. Falk, I talked about Ro Khanna, which was not a year ago. But look, we're running out of time. I appreciate you being on the program and we will continue to have this discussion. Thank you for being with us. Now, later in the program, the ripple effect of conflict in the Strait of Hormuz from the Gulf to Europe and beyond.

[Ophir Falk]

Finding the source you can trust for weather forecasts should be easy, right?

[Hari Srinivasan]

This is CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam

[Ophir Falk]

thrilled to introduce the new CNN weather app. Check your daily forecast to plan your day. The weekly forecast to see what's on the way and prepare for any major storm with our robust real time video coverage. The app is stunning. And if you're a weather nerd like me, you'll love our in depth stories and the photo of the day. Download the CNN weather app on iOS today.

[Lucy Schiller]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service. Adam Alexik is a linguist and the author of the New York Times best selling book Algospeak. He posts to his millions of followers as the etymology nerd.

[Ophir Falk]

Why is everybody saying the word adjacent

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

all of a sudden?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Has anyone else noticed that the word

[Ophir Falk]

crunchy kind of changed meanings?

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

If you think you're somehow immune to

[Ophir Falk]

sounding more like AI, you're wrong.

[Lucy Schiller]

I spoke with Adam in a live event at the Paley Museum in New York City last month.

[Ophir Falk]

Creators are using certain linguistic strategies that

[Christiane Amanpour]

work better for the algorithm.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

There are memes that are replicating around what goes viral, around what resonates within

[Ophir Falk]

certain clusters of the Internet.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

Then that bleeds over into our real speech.

[Ophir Falk]

And now we have children in middle

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

schools writing essays about how Hamlet contemplated unaliving himself.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And that's fascinating to me.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Me.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

It's fascinating me that the Pope is doing 6, 7.

[Ophir Falk]

I think we should get to the bottom of that.

[Lucy Schiller]

Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The growing tension in the Strait of Hormuz means renewed risk on the global economy, sparking new fears of surging inflation. And mixed messages from Washington, including this week's flip flop from the President Trump himself on imposing fees on cargo. And in the Strait of Hormuz, these are all rattling allies. They are now shifting their strategic reliance away from Washington, dealing with what the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, has called a rupture in the world order. Now joining us to discuss this is Leslie Vinjamuri. She's a foreign policy scholar and head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Welcome back to our program. Can I first start by asking you a few basics? You might have heard the senior foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu, I mean, verbally and out there and publicly. Regime change, I thought, was a key stated objective.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

You know, in the beginning, back late February, there were multiple objectives. And I think the dominant view of Americans, the American public certainly was that there were so many objectives that it wasn't clear what the plan was and what the goal was. There was certainly a point when there was a talk about regime change. And you know, to be very clear, Americans have almost no appetite. Most Americans for regime change. And that goes back a very long way. But February 28th was a long time ago, and as we know, President Trump was fairly hot on the heels of having taken Maduro out of Venezuela. So things have moved very quickly.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So it's moved now after six months or so to this point where we're at, which is a five day at least, you know, exchange of fire and in some cases very heavy fire, all centered not necessarily on regime change, not even necessarily on the nucleophile, but on the status of the Strait of Hormuz. From your perspective, what exactly is happening right now as President Trump launches military strikes, the Iranians fire back. There's talk, well, they've, the Americans have reimposed the naval blockade to pressure the Iranians to get back to the table. Describe what you think is actually happening now.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

Well, first of all, it's a lot of disruption, chaos and lack of a clear strategic plan that's being implemented in a sequence that seems, is clearly doesn't seem to be rationally driven. You know, that doesn't seem to be a plan. There's a lot of reaction. But, you know, the way I see it is that, as you just said, it's come down to if it started out as being maybe about regime change, maybe about Iran's nuclear capabilities, it certainly whittled down to being very much about getting that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. And for President Trump being able to do that while not ceding the ground to Iran. And everybody knows that Iran has gained a lot of leverage through its ability now to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz. And I think that we felt for a period of time that the ceasefire was something that was in everybody's interest, including President Trump. And I think what he's realized is that he, from his own perspective, needs to continue to use leverage. Right now, it's that blockade in order to not completely cede control to Iran that, you know, it may turn on again, off again, access to the Strait of Hormuz.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And of course, this wasn't an issue before the war was launched. But by, but by the same token, Iran is under very, very dire pressure at home. Its economy is very bad. By its own admission. It says the war has caused $270 billion in damage and the economy has been in tatters, and that's what launched the protests against the regime back in December, January. So what do you think about the internal dynamics that appear to be showing up inside Iran right now with the very hardliners wanting to keep Taking the war to the United States, with the negotiators slightly less hardliners, understanding that they've got issues and wanting also a negotiated end to this.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

Look, I can speak from the point of view of the United States and President Trump, and what I would estimate is that he sees that division, he loves to play on weakness and drive a wedge, if there is one, to be driven in a gap that's opening up internally within Iran, as you've suggested. And that would be a reason for him to double back down, to put that blockade back, to strike. And the, the tragic thing for the people of Iran is now we're listening to the US President threaten to hit power plants, civilian infrastructure, I mean, things that are far beyond the bounds of anything approaching adherence to international humanitarian law. Not something that we talk about very much anymore. But it's leverage, and it's leverage playing on weakness. And President Trump for this, for him, this is, quite frankly, bread and butter tactics.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Of course, those threats were similar to ones the president made several months ago, and then he didn't carry them out. But as you say, it's leverage. Do you think the United States thinks that the Houthis in Yemen could add to the issues, add to the problems, the economic blockades, by blocking the sort of gateway to the Red Sea? We understand that Saudi Arabia has launched some attacks on Sana' A in order to give a message that that shouldn't happen. But is that, do you see Iran engaging those proxies?

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

Look, this is what it looks like. It looks like allegedly, possibly, the United States gave license to Saudi to respond. And again, I think this is evidence not of the United States, and it's an incredibly important distinction right now. My organization knows a lot about what the public thinks. The public are not happy about this war. They're not supportive of Israel, they're not supportive of the war. You name it, they're not on side. But the President of the United States of America is not concerned about the risk of escalation. At least his behavior does not suggest that he is. And he's clearly concerned that Iran could double down on its use of proxies again in the region. He's clearly worried that he's losing. He has been losing, not strictly in terms of America's ability to weaken Iran militarily, the United States government has done that, but in terms of achieving what it wants to achieve, which is open seas when it comes to that strait and America feeling and this president feeling like he has the upper hand. And yes, so what you've pointed to is clearly evidence that all is not well and that Iran is potentially turning to old tactics and the United States is taking the bait.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And what about the United States and its NATO allies? In the aftermath of the Ankara summit, a lot of chat has been going on about whether they should do the Rutte mode of staying close to President Trump or the Macron Carney et cetera mode of trying to be more self sufficient. Let me just read you something from the Under Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby. He has been talking and responding to Carney of Canada, the Prime Minister calling for the so called middle powers to have a strategy. So this is Colby. We are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will think it is and waste valuable time, money and political capital on a distraction. The simple fact of the matter is that no alternative country or countries can compete with the United States defense industrial base either in quantity or quality. What's your reaction to that?

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

I mean, I think Bridge Colby and quite frankly this administration, and quite frankly previous administrations continue to send mixed signals. They wish Europe to do more, spend more, be more independent, be more reliable, be more consistent. But when there's evidence as there is now that Europe is moving very much to do that, greater defense spending on the part of America's European NATO allies, greater increase this year than at any point since 1953. When they do that, there's a real concern that Europe might actually be strong enough to make decisions that are separate or different from the United States. So that I guess the second thing I'd say is he's not wrong in the current moment. He's not wrong that the United States is massively ahead. Especially if we recognize the fact which is that Europe is not Europe. Europe is a number of different states that are working very hard to try and have joint procurement interoperability to spend more in ways that are complementary within Europe and that that is an aspiration and they're moving towards it. But Europeans know that they have a long way to go. And I think that to your original question, the reason that it's not clear what the strategy should be is because first of all, Trump is difficult to deal with. We know that different strategies work in different circumstances on different days. But also Europe has to bide its time, spend more, build more, keep America in, but play that long term game also, which is to be able to be truly independent. There's a lot that's going to happen between now and that hoped for moment when Europeans are aligned internally and more independent. And one thing that I hope changes is American leadership and America's preferences for what it wants from Europe and how it seeks to govern. And quite frankly, I think it, I think it will change.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Really interesting perspective. Thank you so much. Leslie Venger Mouri joining us from the United States. Thanks a lot. Now, three weeks after the earthquakes in Venezuela, anger keeps rising at the government's response to the disaster. Contributor Stefano Pozebon reports from near the epicenter of the quakes in La Guayra.

[Stefano Pozebon]

Three weeks since Venezuela was hit by twin destroyers, destructive earthquakes, it is far too early to even think of turning the page. According to government officials, more than 4,500 people have been killed. Many will rest nameless here. A new mass graveyard expanded last week in La Guayra, close to the disaster zone. The true death toll we may never know. Thousands of people are still looking for missing loved ones. It is just one of several questions thrown at local authorities. The US backed acting President Kelsey Rodriguez, who has been in power since January, is being criticized for a delayed and insufficient response to the most devastating natural disaster her country has faced in this century. But the government's reassurances, including the deployment of 19,000 military officials, does not square with our own experience on the ground in Venezuela. This used to be a golf course. La Guayra was a tourist hotspot by the Caribbean Sea. And so here is where tourists will come and play golf and relax. Now, of course, it's a tent city for hundreds of displaced, many of whom actually used to live there in those blocks. And every day they wake up and they see their homes and flats broken down by the brutality of the earthquakes. It is here we met Zosan Tander. Back then, she hadn't been able to see her son in 10 days. They were separated. In the aftermath of the quakes, Zoe made it out unharmed. Her 7 year old Xavier was trapped under the rubble. To this day, Zoe still doesn't know where her son is. Nothing remains of their home, a vast housing complex built by Rodriguez's predecessor, the late President Hugo Chavez. This year's earthquakes, just the latest in a seemingly never ending run of tragedies suffered by the Venezuelan people. A few days after the tremors, we met one person whose life chronicled that struggle like so many. 45 year old primary school teacher Ninoska Gutierrez emigrated in 2018 seeking better opportunities and a decent salary to support her family. She lived in Peru, crossed the jungle and moved to the US in the following years. Just as Venezuela's infrastructure fell into disrepair. Listening to her is like living through dozens of stories I covered as a foreign correspondent for almost 10 years the Venezuelan economic collapse under Nicolas Maduro, the exodus of millions of migrants to other countries in Latin America and then to the United States and the crackdown on undocumented migrants under Donald Trump's second administration. Last month, Ninoshka was detained by Miami police over an incident and charged with a misdemeanor. Deported to Caracas just hours before the quakes hit, she was resting in a hotel when the ground started shaking. Incredibly, Ninoska made it out of the hotel alive, and yet it is a draw in the ocean. The coastal road in La Guayra is now lined with debris of collapsed buildings, the waves of the Caribbean Sea crashing on the remains of so many lives shattered. For those who survived it, it is now time to pick up the pieces, looking somehow to rebuild the.

[Christiane Amanpour]

What a miserable time for those people in Venezuela. Coming up, the realities of elder care in the United States and why so many are afraid of getting old there. Author Rebecca Schiller speaks to Hari Srinivasan about her new book, Aging Out. That's after the break.

[Ophir Falk]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. This week's guest, Dr. Marshall Leonard. He once defended goals as a Major League Soccer player for the New England Revolution, but now he's defending life as an emergency medicine doctor at Stony Brook in New York. I have tried to understand, can I see when a player is in flow state just as a spectator?

[Hari Srinivasan]

Can I sort of observe this in some way?

[Ophir Falk]

You have such a unique lens on things now, both again, as a former player but now physician. Can you tell? When I'm watching the World Cup, I think that I can sort of see when a player is feeling it and is in a zone. Let your athleticism take over because you have that ability. So calm your mind, take a breath. I just say, just do it like Nike.

[Lucy Schiller]

Just do it.

[Ophir Falk]

Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So what does it mean to age in America? When basic tasks like bathing, grocery shopping, paying bills become just too difficult, who can the elderly turn to for help? Professional assistance and nursing facilities are expensive, so more than 80% of Americans over 65 rely on family and friends. And as author Lucy Schiller knows well, it is no small task. Her new book, aging out, draws on her personal experience, caring for her own grandmother during the COVID 19 pandemic. And she speaks to Hari Srinivasan about realities of elder care today.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Christiane thanks, Lucy Schiller thanks so much for joining us. You've written a book recently. It's called Aging Out, An Exploration of Caregiving Community and how Americans Grow Old. Now it takes a good deep dive into what I would call the elder care industry in this country, but it was personal. Why did you start this?

[Lucy Schiller]

The great question. One of the reasons I started it was because I realized that I knew almost nothing about the daily realities of what it's like to be an older person in this country. And the main way that I kind of realized that level of ignorance in myself was by taking care of or helping to take care of one of my grandmothers at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, we took her out of an assisted living facility because we were nervous about the spread of COVID inside. And I moved up kind of the only person in my family without a job. So very convenient. I moved up and lived with her for a few months and really kind of saw firsthand some of the realities of what it's like to be an older person in this country. And I also kind of realized I knew nothing about the inner workings of where she had been living for the past ten or so years. You know, I would visit this assisted living facility on occasion, but that's a far cry, you know, from actually residing inside of it.

[Hari Srinivasan]

You write in the language of elder care. She needed help with her ADLs, her activities of daily life. She needed someone to massage her arthritic feet with arnica cream, to help put on her shoes, to make her food, to do her laundry, to keep the place clean, to go get groceries, to stay on top of the many medications and health needs, to make doctor's appointments and get her to them. And this was your first experience with this, you know, and it's interesting, so many people just reading that list alone would say, wow, that's a lot. That's a full time job. And yet the people who are caring for so many of their loved ones in this country are doing that in addition to a full time job.

[Lucy Schiller]

Yeah, very often. And maybe in addition to raising their own kids or any number of obligations, you know, that they may have. So it's a, it's a huge amount of work. It's also, I would say, a huge amount of work just being an older person and needing that level of help or, or even just kind of wanting, you know, family close by or a loved one of some kind close by to, to connect with and talk, talk through this really interesting and complex phase of life with.

[Hari Srinivasan]

Yeah, there's A stat that it's in here. It says the national median cost for a semi private room in a nursing home was $110,000,000 a year in 2025. And that is staggering. So help our audience understand kind of the lay of the land here. How did this become a for profit industry? Who owns it? Who's profiting? Just give me an idea of when people get old in this country in general. What is happening to them? Where are they going?

[Lucy Schiller]

Yeah. So, you know, Medicare was passed in the late 60s, and with the passage of Medicare, there was a sudden springing up of nursing homes and the nursing home industry. A lot has changed. Kind of like Cliff Notes version. A lot has changed in those kind of decades. There was a movement, particularly in the 70s, in response to conditions in these early nursing homes to make sure that nursing homes were actually places that offered good quality care and didn't, in fact, maybe even get people more sick than they were when they entered and were solid places in which an older person or a person with a disability could receive quality care. Since then, there's also been assisted living facilities and the rise of assisted living facilities, which. So with nursing homes, generally you pay for those via Medicaid. And you hear all of these stories, right, about people having to, quote, spend down in order to qualify for Medicaid in order to enter a nursing home. So what that might mean is, you know, you have to maybe even sell your house in order to get into a nursing home. Nursing homes can be for profit. They can be nonprofit. There's a whole range of them. They're not uniformly bad or uniformly good. Some of them are excellent, some of them are maybe not so much. There are huge conglomerates behind a lot of nursing homes. There's private equity now in that space. Assisted living is another part of that landscape. And with assisted living, you have to go what's called private pay. So if you're entering an assisted living, generally speaking, this is not always the case, but very much the majority of the case of the time, you're paying out of your own pocket in order to enter an assisted living facility. And these places can be exorbitantly expensive.

[Hari Srinivasan]

And so give me an idea of how much.

[Lucy Schiller]

Anywhere from probably lower end, like $5,000 a month, to way, way, way higher than that. There's also what are called continuing care retirement communities, which, that's the type of thing that sometimes people think of, you know, when they think of aging in a, in a really nice place. You enter, you pay a lot of money. You enter at A certain age that you've agreed upon kind of contractually with this, this place, and then you kind of age there through whatever your body decides to do. Maybe you end up needing to go into their memory care facility. Maybe you need a, you know, maybe you don't need too much help. But either way, you're kind of surrounded by all sorts of people with all sorts of kind of experiences of oldness in there. And then finally there's aging in place. What that term tends to mean is, you know, that you're at home and that you're not in a quote unquote facility of some kind. You're, you're aging in a place of your own kind of desire and maybe familiarity. And so there's been an increase in kind of state support in some ways for that option. There are certain places that, you know, help you, you know, install grab bars in your bathroom if that's something that you need, or provide you with reimbursement for caretaking, caregiving services. People coming into your home.

[Hari Srinivasan]

There is Medicare and that is, you know, the, the option that so many people get because they're, they're not, they don't qualify, they don't have low enough income for Medicaid. And within Medicare there's this big fork in the road of Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans for most people, again, that are not in that part of life yet, haven't done the homework. What's the big difference and what's happened to this?

[Lucy Schiller]

That's a great question. First of all, I'll just note that Medicare does not cover long term care. And this is something that very often surprises even older people themselves when they get to a moment of needing to suddenly pay for long term care. So that's a really kind of important basic fact here. Medicare Advantage is what I would call the privatized arm of Medicare. So Medicare, as you said, it's a public program. There's one Medicare. There are about 4,000 Medicare Advantage plans. And what these are are insurance company brokered private plans that still bill Medicare, the public, you know, insurance option for people for their services. Medicare Advantage plans have been reported, you know, to be draining the Medicare fund, particularly by, and this I think is coming from a New York Times report on it. Insurance companies that are using and selling Medicare Advantage plans, developing these kind of systems to make patients appear as sick as possible and then bill accordingly. So denials of care in Medicare Advantage plans are relatively high. Often Medicare Advantage plans are heavily marketed to people and particularly I saw study that underlined that they're very often marketed to black and Hispanic patients. They also are very often involving what we're all probably familiar with at this point, this term, prior authorization, right, that you need to be authorized by your doctor or your insurance company rather, for a particular procedure before they decide whether or not they're going to reimburse you. And a lot of reporting has been done on this that Medicare Advantage plans. There are many stories out there about people suddenly realizing that their surgery isn't going to be covered by this plan that has offered them all of these wonderful freebies. They can be anything from incredibly affordable and cheap to incredibly expensive. They're, I would say, the personalized privatized version of Medicare. And so you can really kind of choose almost an a la carte option type option, like what you want from your insurance plan, whether or not it's going to work for you down the road. You know, fingers crossed.

[Hari Srinivasan]

How does aging and the options that you have in America differ based on your race or your income level or your gender?

[Lucy Schiller]

Well, statistically, the people who tend to make it to old age are white women. So that's a pretty important fact to consider. And in my book, a reviewer just pointed this out, which I thought was a really smart point, that a lot of my subjects or the people who I'm speaking with in the book are women. But your class really, really, really influences your experience as an older person. So, you know, for instance, if you're on Medicaid, that is going to really kind of whittle your options in a very particular direction when it comes to long term care. Certainly, you know, that means you're, you're eligible to get into a nursing home, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be going into an assisted living facility or a continuing care retirement community, both of which are kind of the province of more moneyed people. And it's part of my book, you know, I, I toured some of these places and I had this strange emotional experience in a continuing care retirement community because I just felt like no one I know is going to be able to experience something like this. This is amazing. It's beautiful. It's like all of these older people, there was a woodworking shop, there was a swimming pool, there were people maintaining the gardens outside. It's a place where residents really like run the place. It's very insistent on resident autonomy and self direction. And I thought this is like, this is the ideal, you know, if you're deciding to live in a community rather than necessarily age in place inside your own home. And yet, you know, it would be financially out of reach for nearly everyone that I know, myself included.

[Hari Srinivasan]

You know, when you look at this uniquely American problem, in some ways, is there a format that we can adopt? Are there countries that are doing it better? What can we, what's a good idea that we can steal?

[Lucy Schiller]

Well, to be honest, I would just say universal healthcare across the spectrum would be a wonderful place to start. You know, one of, one of the things that I really wish that we could do in general is just have more intergenerational connection. A person who I looked at in the book, who's the famous elder activist, Maggie Kuhn, and she was a huge advocate for intergenerational housing and lived with younger people as an older woman for decades. And I spoke with some of them who remembered what that experience was like for them so many years, you know, after the fact. And they found it to be totally life changing. So I think that's something a lot of other countries have that we actually already do have small versions of that happening in the United States in various cities. But I think in general, you know, maybe if we could talk about it on an individual level for a second, like, you know, thinking of yourself as someone who ideally, and I'm speaking here as a youngish person, is going to grow old. Like, I don't want to preclude connections with older people currently in my life. I want to learn from them. I want to connect with them. I want to be surprised and changed and moved by them in the same way that hopefully I can do the same for them. And that's, I think, more than anything, like trying to think about dissolving walls between older people and younger is something to really think through, particularly as younger people who have really been steeped in, I would say, a lot of anti old person rhetoric for many years now.

[Hari Srinivasan]

The book is called Aging Out. Author Lucy Schiller, thanks so much for your time.

[Lucy Schiller]

Thanks for having me.

[Christiane Amanpour]

And finally, if you could taste the stars, it just might be a little sweet. Astronomers have detected a type of sugar near the center of the Milky Way. No, not the chocolate bar, but the one in space. Discovered using these telescopes in Spain. The sugar floats in clouds of dust and gas, and it's the same as in raspberries. Apparently it's not the first time. Samples from the asteroid Bennu from a while back contained a sprinkle of other types of sugars. Let's not talk about the health issues around sugar. Apparently it's a key ingredient for intergalactic life. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all over social media. Thanks for watching and goodbye from London.

[Ophir Falk]

Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities.

[Christiane Amanpour]

My mom would always say, the only

[Lucy Schiller]

way out is through.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The only way out is through.

[Ophir Falk]

There are no shortcuts.

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

You have to feel it.

[Ophir Falk]

Her name is Nicole Avant. She's a producer, a former diplomat, and an author. In 2021, Nicole's mom, Jacqueline, was shot to death by an intruder in her home. She was 81 years old and had been married to Nicole's dad, Clarence, for 54 years. How is grief different for you now than it was? Maybe at first, a lot of really

[Leslie Vinjamuri]

positive memories have now taken over versus

[Ophir Falk]

the shock and the trauma.

[Christiane Amanpour]

The grief is still there, but it shows up kind of with a smile instead.

[Ophir Falk]

Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.