Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman; Interview with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen; Interview with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer; Interview with New York University Atmosphere/Ocean Science Professor David Holland. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 17, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN (through translator): If negotiations are to occur, it is wrong and foolish to predetermine their
outcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: High-stakes diplomacy in Geneva as talks between the U.S. and Iran resume, and tensions grow over the American buildup in the region. I
speak to Wendy Sherman, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, who helped negotiate the 2015 nuclear deal.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: We have to be an independent Europe.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Europe hasn't done enough in its own defense and security for many years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- a transatlantic turning point. At the Munich Security Conference, European leaders signaling a new strategy. Christiane's
conversation with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on security, Ukraine, and whether
Europe is ready to stand on its own.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOLLAND, PROFESSOR, ATMOSPHERE/OCEAN SCIENCE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: What happens in our part of the world, in the U.S., affects Antarctica, and
Antarctica affects us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- from the edge of Antarctica, scientist David Holland joins Hari Sreenivasan from a research ship studying rapidly melting glaciers,
and what their collapse could mean for global sea levels.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
It's a day of dual diplomacy in the Geneva area, as President Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, attempt to
negotiate with Iran to avert a wider war. Also, on the agenda, attempting to end Russia's war in Ukraine as it approaches its fifth year.
Iran's foreign minister describes the talks as serious and positive, as it seeks an end to sanctions that have crippled its economy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): We were able to reach a general agreement on a series of guiding principles. We
will move based on those principles and enter into the text of a possible agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The United States says progress was made, but details need to be discussed, and that Iran will come back with proposals in the next two
weeks. Now, all of this happening as American military assets build up in the region. The talks come 40 days since the peak of Iran's brutal
crackdown on protesters that killed thousands. And on the Ukraine file, Witkoff and Kushner joined trilateral negotiations over ending the war.
Those talks come as Russia unleashed a wave of attacks on Ukraine overnight into Tuesday, killing at least two people.
So, could these talks avert a wider war in the Middle East and end Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II? Wendy Sherman is a former U.S.
Deputy Secretary of State who negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, and she joins us now live from Sarasota, Florida. Wendy, welcome back to
the program.
So, we heard there from the Iranian foreign minister saying that they've reached an understanding on the main principles with the United States.
Some details will be now shared over the next two weeks. Iranian President Pezeshkian just came out, though, and said that Tehran will never abandon,
quote, "its peaceful nuclear program." So, how much do you read into these statements?
WENDY SHERMAN, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I read sort of a holding pattern in many ways, Bianna. I think that what we heard today is
that they may have agreed on an agenda of items that need to be resolved and a process for drafting some proposals to share with each other. But I
would also remind all of us of two really critical facts.
One, June 19, 2025, President Trump said in two weeks, I'll know whether we need to take action or not with Iran. And then three days later, we had
Operation Hammer. That's not to say we're about to go to war, but it is to say that those two weeks tend to show up often in negotiations between
President Trump and others around the world, and including domestically with the United States Congress. Second important fact is that the carrier
group Ford is making its way to the Middle East, but it's not there yet. And clearly with the United States Congress.
Second important fact is that the carrier group Gerald Ford is making its way to the Middle East, but it's not there yet.
[13:05:00]
And if President Trump does decide that he's going to take military action, you want to have two carrier strike groups in the region, not just the one
that is there now. All of this being said, certainly, I hope that diplomacy continues, that we do not take military action, because I don't think we
know what the outcome would be of military action. Yes, we are incredibly powerful. Yes, our military is better than anyone's in the world.
But Iran does have missiles. Iran can strike our troops. Iran can strike American citizens in the region, can strike Israel, can strike partners in
the Gulf, can create chaos on the oil markets. And we don't know, even if somehow, Iran's leadership was decapitated, a horrible leadership, as you
pointed out, having killed many of its own citizens after protests or during protests. We don't know. As Secretary Rubio himself said in Senate
testimony, we have no idea what would come next.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, thousands, if not tens of thousands killed roughly a month ago in those protests. You mentioned the carrier strike group, the USS
Gerald R. Ford, joining the Lincoln, and now that would be nine other warships in total that would be in Iran's coast. Here's how the Ayatollah
Khamenei responded to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, SUPREME LEADER OF IRAN (through translator): It seems to them that the U.S. president keeps saying this, the U.S. Army is
the strongest army in the world. The strongest army in the world may sometimes get slapped so hard that it cannot stand up straight.
They keep saying we've sent an aircraft carrier towards Iran. Very well. An aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous piece of equipment. But more
dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send that carrier towards the bottom of the sea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, that is similar language that we heard from Khamenei prior to the strikes back in June. And President Trump has said that there are
consequences, severe consequences, if there is no deal in these current talks. Does that type of military pressure strengthen U.S. leverage at the
table with Araghchi, a man who you've negotiated with know quite well, or does that make his position even more tenuous, given that he's not the
ultimate decision maker here?
SHERMAN: I'd say it's a little bit of both. No negotiation of this nature is successful without a credible threat of force. And what President Trump
is doing is showing that, in fact, there is a credible threat of force. On the other hand, many of our partners, allies in the region are quite
concerned that if we attack or attack with Israel or back Israel up if it attacks, that there will be consequences for all of the countries in the
region, not just the United States.
We've seen oil markets today respond positively to the fact that these negotiations didn't fall apart today. And we have also seen, on the other
side, Iran showing it has military power by doing drills in the Strait of Hormuz, which is very critical for shipping, very critical for oil
deliveries, very critical for global markets. And so, everybody's doing posturing around use of force.
The reality is, this is not a negotiation among equals. We are trying to get Iran to do something to make the world safer, to ensure they never have
a nuclear weapon, which we all agree is absolutely critical. But Iran has a way of being able to deal with things asymmetrically, as we have seen in
the past. And even though their proxy forces in the region have been weakened by actions by Israel and by us, the fact remains they still have
asymmetric abilities to make everybody's life hell.
GOLODRYGA: And if we think back to those strikes back in June, Iran has still denied the IAEA access to those sites. Araghchi met with Rafael
Grossi just yesterday. And if the United States is demanding zero enrichment here, and again, not having verification of on-site access, and
Iran is saying they will never give up what they call a peaceful nuclear program, how can you come to any sort of agreement, ultimately?
[13:10:00]
I mean, I know you posturing, oil markets seem to be calmed down a bit by what we heard today. But are we just waiting or avoiding the inevitable
that could come in the next few weeks?
SHERMAN: I think that could come in the next few weeks, but with a great cost for everyone, including the United States, in my view, without a
certain outcome that we know would occur. Look, the fact remains that although Iran is not really the demander here, the United States is, the
rest of the world is, that Iran never have a nuclear weapon.
Iran really -- their entire culture is about resilience and resistance. That's what the 1979 revolution was about. And indeed, they're not going to
back away. They want, as we keep hearing from Araghchi, who is a very skilled communicator, very skilled negotiator, that Iran will not submit to
threats. There is a real need for Iran to feel that it has dignity as a nation and as a country that can survive. I understand that, but
nonetheless, this is a theocracy that just murdered thousands of its citizens.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the deadliest unrest in Iran's modern history. That is a consensus of what this regime unleashed on its own people among experts and
historians just a few weeks ago. So, if you take President Trump and his administration and put that aside, because there's so much here that he's
made threats before, but he's lived up to them in ways that previous U.S. administrations just haven't.
You put that aside, there's also the question of credibility within Iran itself and approval of this regime in a way that perhaps wasn't at stake
back in 2015 when you were negotiating. Because when you hear from these protesters, you talk about the impact that those atrocities and mass
killings had on the country that is still reeling from them. They are saying that a better nuclear deal is not what they took to the streets for.
So, are we ultimately talking about a regime that has lost legitimacy with its own people?
SHERMAN: I think it's a mixed bag, unfortunately, still, because the regime has tremendous propaganda power within the country. The vast
majority of Iranians are under the age of 35. They do not see an economic future for themselves. Part of the reason why the regime was so
horrifyingly murderous during this last protest is because they know that, in fact, the protests could take over the country.
The IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, really owns the economy of Iran in many ways. They're not going to give it up easily. Yes, it is a
theocracy, but with enormous power of its military. So, we have a lot to unpack here.
Look, I don't think that President Trump wants to rush to war, even though even some of his MAGA supporters who wanted an America First agenda and
didn't want to see Americans at war are backing off of that a little bit and have supported President Trump in some of the actions he's taken in
Venezuela. I'm not sure they support what he's doing in Ukraine, and we can get to that in a moment if you want to discuss it.
But the fact is that the president may find himself up against a wall as we're heading towards the midterm elections, and I don't think the United
States of America wants to see American citizens, American troops dead on a battlefield with Iran, nor do they want to see the price of oil go sky high
so that electricity costs are even greater than they are today. There is an enormous amount at stake here, including, of course, the future for the
people of Iran.
GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about Ukraine, because the common theme here is not that these talks are just taking place in the same city. They are being
mediated by the same U.S. officials, and that is Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. These are not career diplomats, but they do have the support and
the say of President Trump when they go to the negotiating table here.
The table looks quite different from the one you sat at in 2015. There were career diplomats, nuclear physicists, but just talk about some of the
concerns and perhaps, I don't know if there's any optimism that you see, in their perspective coming to the table now and what they could bring that
your negotiating team could not. We can start with Iran, and then I do want to get to Ukraine as well.
[13:15:00]
SHERMAN: So, look, I think that it is quite unusual and quite difficult for the same two negotiators, Witkoff and Kushner, to do Ukraine, Iran, and
Gaza all at the same time. Yes, there are some of the same countries involved in all these negotiations. Maybe there's some leverage
opportunities amongst the three.
But nonetheless, it is, in my view, insane to have these two try to do all of that all at once. Yes, they are capable, obviously, businessmen, but
that makes me concerned because it is a very transactional approach. We have seen it being used to feather the nest of the Witkoff, Kushner, and
Trump families in terms of their own personal finances. So, this is very complicated.
And not only are these not professional negotiators or diplomats, I was a political appointee. These are people who have not been vetted, have not
been confirmed, don't do all the necessary financial disclosures. I don't even know what position Jared Kushner has formally within the
administration. But not only don't you have all the experts necessary at the table, though I was glad to see Grossi of the International Atomic
Energy Agency was involved in these discussions, but you have a situation where you don't have the Europeans at the table, you don't have Russia and
China at the table, which we did.
And the reason that made our negotiation more complicated, yes, but it also meant that we had the entire world behind what we were trying to do. That
is not the case any longer. This is really a bilateral negotiation between the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. with Russia and Ukraine. Others don't sit at
the table, maybe near the table, as we've seen with Israel and the Gulf in many of these negotiations. But it's quite a different setup.
We are not returning to 2015. We are not returning to the JCPOA. Life has moved on. But these guys have a lot on their plate. And don't have the
history, the knowledge, the team that's necessary. No great negotiation ever happens because of one person.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And of course, you know, their argument is that your plan, the way you negotiated under your administration didn't work. So, why not
try theirs? But what is interesting is also is both Iran and Russia now and even Ukraine, dangling economic ties, business opportunities for the United
States and their respective countries as a way to seek favor with this administration and come to terms with a deal.
I do want to ask you about what we now saw in terms of these trilateral talks over the war in Ukraine, President Trump saying that Ukraine needs to
get moving. Once again, the pressure seems to be directed mostly, if not all, on Ukraine. And you have Vladimir Medinsky, who is a hardliner here,
overseeing and speaking for the Russians as these talks really focused on territorial gain and control.
What position does that leave Ukraine in as the president keeps squeezing both sides, but mostly Ukraine, into agreeing to a deal soon?
SHERMAN: Well, Bianna, I think you were quite generous to say that both sides have been squeezed. And although there have been some actions
regarding Russia in terms of oil sanctions around the world, nonetheless, all the pressure for the most part has been on Zelenskyy and on Ukraine,
which is outrageous given that Russia intervened and horrifically began a war with a sovereign country whose territory should be respected and who
has a right to make its own political future.
I think that, yes, there's discussion of territory. Zelenskyy has looked to see whether anything is possible, perhaps having a demilitarized zone in
some of the contentious areas in Donetsk and having a way forward that gives Russia something, but really doesn't turn over territory in any
substantial way for any length of time to Russia. I think all of Europe knows that lots more could happen if Putin feels he's won this war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Russia showing how serious or not serious it is by launching 400 drones just hours before these talks began. Wendy Sherman, it
is really good to see you again. Thank you so much for the time.
SHERMAN: Thank you, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: At the Munich Security Conference this past weekend, all eyes were on U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose speech proved to be more
diplomatic than Vice President J.D. Vance one year ago. But the substance, well, that was much the same. And Europe seems to be absorbing a stark new
reality. A less predictable United States and a growing need to stand on its own. Christiane spoke with European Commission President Ursula von der
Leyen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer about what that means as war continues to rage on their continent.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: First, I want to ask you, there were a couple of applause lines for Secretary of State Marco
Rubio. He said, it's neither our wish or our goal to destroy the transatlantic alliance. So, I want to know whether you feel convinced by
that, whether you feel that the feathers are being, you know, unruffled after last year's broadside, which was exactly the opposite from the
American speaker, Vice President J.D. Vance.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: I was very much reassured by the speech of the Secretary of State. We know him. He's a good
friend, a strong ally. Indeed, this -- and this was for me very reassuring to listen to him. We know that in the administration, some have a harsher
tone on these topics. But the secretary of state was very clear. He said, we want a strong Europe in the alliance.
And this is what we are working for intensively in the European Union. We have to be an independent Europe, not a Europe that is leaning on someone,
but a Europe that is going forward with friends and allies together facing the challenges that are out there.
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I thought the secretary of state's speech was consistent with the argument that Ursula made in her remarks a
moment ago and the argument I'm making. I think it's really clear, though, that we shouldn't get in the warm bath of complacency and think that
therefore all we're really doing is reasserting the continuation of what we've had for the last 80 years. That would be a mistake, and it would be a
particular mistake for Europe, because my strong view is that Europe hasn't done enough in its own defense and security for many years.
And the conflict in Ukraine has flushed that out, shown it to be the reality. And it falls to us as leaders to recognize that, to change and
strengthen Europe, which is what I'm arguing for, what Ursula is arguing for, and not just say that, but follow it with actions. And Ursula's taken
the lead on this in the work that she's done, particularly on the funding of the defense work that needs to be done, because we will only be able to
preserve NATO in the way it is needed for the next 80 years if we change and strengthen the European dimension.
That is something which a number of American presidents have said for some time, I believe to be true, and I think we've got to seize this movement to
move forward. Not to pull apart the transatlantic relationship, but to make sure it works in the circumstance and the times that we face.
AMANPOUR: The current secretary general of NATO, after Trump's Davos speech, actually after Prime Minister Carney's speech, which talked about,
you know, a rupture, he said, if you all are thinking that you can do what you have to do without the United States, then dream on. It's not going to
happen. It's not going to happen.
[13:25:00]
So, how long do you think it will take to get to this posture that you both say you need to get to?
STARMER: Well, the first thing I'd say is that we're not looking at a future that tears us apart from the Euro-Atlantic alliance that we have.
NATO has been the single most effective and successful military alliance the world has ever known, and we should never move away from it. I often
and always base my thinking on what is the reality on the ground.
And the reality on the ground, so far as the U.K. is concerned, is we are working with the U.S. on defense, security and intelligence 24/7, every
single day. So, that is the reality of what is happening, and that is as tight now as it's ever been. And I see no sign of that weakening, nor
should it, because that's in the interests of the United Kingdom and the interests of Europe and globally. And that goes into defense, security,
intelligence, obviously nuclear capability as well.
And therefore, I'm often urged back in my own parliament that we should walk away from what we've got, and I reject that. But I think simply
sitting where we are isn't good enough, and therefore the change does need to come.
That needs Europe to be stronger, to be working more closely together. And that's why I said what I said about the U.K.-E.U. relationship. We're 10
years on from Brexit. We are not the Britain of the Brexit years. We're a Britain that wants to work with the E.U. even more closely in light of the
challenge that we face here 10 years on. That will take time.
We are working together. We had a very good U.K.-E.U. summit last year. We will have another one this year where we can make further steps forward.
But this is of some urgency, because I think that on defense and security, until the Ukraine conflict, we didn't really wake up to the reality that
we're facing.
AMANPOUR: But you also said, and I want to get to the bottom of this, that red lines have been crossed and they cannot be uncrossed. You're talking
about the United States in your speech, I think. What red lines are you talking about? Because there is a massive deficit of trust between many
people in the alliance and certainly leaders who are now having to do what you're doing, workarounds, de-risking, decoupling, whatever you might want
to call it, independence. What red lines have been crossed that cannot be uncrossed?
VON DER LEYEN: So, for example, I want to be very clear, our digital sovereignty is our digital sovereignty. Very clear on that one. And we have
a long tradition in freedom of speech. Actually, the Enlightenment started on our continent. And we are very clear with digital sovereignty also that
what is forbidden offline is forbidden online. And we will not flinch what that is concerned. We will be very steadfast to pursue this very clear
demand for us.
But if I may also look at the quote of the secretary general of NATO, dream on. I would like to tell him, my dear friend, no, my dear friend, there's
not only status quo goes on, or division and disruption. There is a lot in between. And status quo is not satisfactory, neither for us, nor for the
United States.
So, there is much more in between. And an independent Europe just means let's develop our strengths without constantly leaning on someone else. And
then being strong, moving forward and facing the challenges the world is offering to us. This is what I want to tell my friend, Mark Rutte.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister, in terms of -- you know, President von der Leyen talked about the digital space. That is a red line that cannot be, you
know, messed around with. What about the violating international borders space? Do you believe the U.S. threat to Greenland is over?
STARMER: Well, I think that, firstly, I'm very pleased that that is now in a process of dialogue, which is where it should have been. The security in
the Arctic is really important for all of us. And we need to do more. That's why I announced what I announced about the Carrier Strike Group. I
thought that those weeks of Greenland were quite instructive because we had, certainly from the British point of view, the usual mix of common
sense, pragmatism, but sticking to our values and principles. And across Europe, we stuck to those values and principles about sovereignty.
[13:00:00]
AMANPOUR: About Ukraine. Because, again, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, barely mentioned it, except for an elusive piece. He said those
words. Now, President Trump has said in his latest comments that Ukraine, President Zelenskyy needs to get on to it because Russia wants a deal.
These are his words. And President Zelenskyy needs to get on to it right now. Otherwise, he's going to miss a great opportunity.
Secretary Rubio did not go to your meeting, your leaders' meeting with President Zelenskyy last night. Where do you think this all stands? Where
do the negotiations stand? Is it Zelenskyy who needs to be pressured?
VON DER LEYEN: So, I think it's extremely important that we do not buy in the Russian narrative. And this has been out too much there. I mean, if we
look at the strategic goals and the military goals of Putin, it's a huge failure. He wanted to Russify Ukraine. Ukraine has become European. He
wanted to stop NATO. NATO has gotten bigger with Sweden and Finland. He wanted to occupy Ukraine within days or weeks.
Well, now we are unfortunately in the fourth year of the war. And I think it is so important that we, on our side, tell the truth what is going on in
Russia with a war economy, with skyrocketing interest rates and inflation, completely isolated. And now, this is a war of attrition. And in this war
of attrition, it is of utmost importance that we push forward the negotiations and put pressure on Putin that he finally comes to the
negotiation table.
And therefore, it was so valuable that we have developed together the security guarantees, the prosperity paper, and are discussing the 20-point
plan. Because it is of utmost importance that Ukraine, the European Union and the United States are on one side of the page, that we are very clear
what our standpoint is. This has very much matured. And now, it's a matter of putting pressure on Putin that he comes. He avoids, of course, the
negotiation table because he does not want to sit down to have peace, which is absolutely abhorrent.
So, therefore, the pressure we put on him and the economy is at the limit, is the one way really to make progress in getting to the negotiation table
to peace talks.
STARMER: Yes. And I mean, I think it's very important. In 10 days is the four-year anniversary of the beginning of the conflict. And it is,
therefore, important to remind ourselves who the aggressor is. The aggressor is Russia. And the quickest way for this conflict to end is for
Russia to stop its aggression. And, therefore, we're not dealing with two equal parties. There's an aggressor, which is Russia, and there is Ukraine,
which has been subject to attack and killing and bombing and taken a huge or paid a huge price.
I agree with Ursula that, actually, if you look at the situation on the ground, it was a huge strategic error for Putin. He thought he would take
Ukraine in a matter of weeks. And here we are four years later. And he has by no means achieved his end. And he has had the opposite effect. The NATO
summit last year was the biggest and the strongest with the greatest resolve for many, many years. So, NATO is stronger.
Russia's lost, as I mentioned a moment ago, a million lives to this conflict. In January this year, I think I'm right in saying, I think 30,000
died on the front line. That is why we're all working for a just and lasting peace. But it will only be just and lasting if there's security
guarantees, because we've had a cessation of hostilities before, but without anything sitting behind it. And one thing we know about Putin, if
nothing sits behind it, he'll go again, which is why we set up the coalition willing to work on security guarantees. I'm really pleased we're
working with the U.S. on that.
Actually, another example, whatever words are used by different individuals in different parts of the globe, the practical reality is we're working
with the Americans on the security guarantees, and we're more advanced now than we were three months ago. And I'm really pleased that we're in a
better position.
AMANPOUR: So, I need to ask you a political question, because a lot of people at home are interested. You've just spoken about the amount of money
that needs to be spent on the Ukraine defense, on Britain, on Europe. That takes politics and convincing. You have, I want to ask you, do you think
you narrowly just miss being toppled? Do you think that what's happening in the politics at home is distracting you and perhaps making you vulnerable
to a Brexit follow, you know, the Reform Party, or even maybe the conservatives who might not want to pursue the kind of politics that you
want to pursue?
[13:35:00]
STARMER: No, I reject that. I ended the week much stronger than I started it, and that's a very good place to be. And my party and my government is
completely united on the question of Ukraine and defense and security, and the need for stronger relations with Europe on defense, on security, and on
economy as well. And so, I think that there is real strength in the fact that we're in a better position than the position I've now set out.
I think the whole of the government is united behind that. I think actually it unites across the House of Commons. Not everybody, I accept. Reform have
a different agenda. They're pro-Putin. We know where they stand. Imagine if they were in government in the United Kingdom. The Coalition of the Willing
could not exist with U.K. participation in it. We would not be seen as a leader on the European or international stage. We would be seen as a
country that people couldn't do business with.
So, it's not universal across our parliament, but there's a very strong feeling amongst right-minded politicians that we stick together on Ukraine.
When I was in opposition, we supported the then government, Conservative government on Ukraine because it was the right thing to do for the values
that we uphold. And I'm pleased to say that the Conservative opposition, as it now is, supports the government when it comes to Ukraine because, again,
we share the values that underpin it.
So, for all of the divisions that you have to get in politics, there are some real clarity and some real certainty on these key issues.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Starmer, President von der Leyen, thank you very much indeed.
STARMER: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next, another climate rollback in America. The 2009 endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gases threatened
public health and welfare, was revoked on Thursday. Trump calls it the largest irregulatory action in American history. The U.S. is the second
largest carbon emitter in the world. And climate scientist David Holland warns that the consequences are being felt in Antarctica. He speaks to Hari
Sreenivasan as he returns from a recent expedition there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Thanks, David Holland. Thanks so much for joining us. You have just spent almost
two months on an expedition to go and study and learn from the Thwaites Glacier down in Antarctica. What was the point of this expedition?
DAVID HOLLAND, PROFESSOR, ATMOSPHERE/OCEAN SCIENCE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: The point, ultimately, is to provide society with a forecast of the future
of the global sea level. So, if you think about it, the world's coastline is enormous, and Antarctica poses a threat to that in terms of sea levels.
Of course, through time, sea levels have gone up and down by hundreds of feet naturally. And so, right now, humanity seems to be tweaking the
Antarctic ice sheet.
SREENIVASAN: So, what were the kinds of instruments, what was the sort of scientific test that you wanted to do so that we would get a better handle
on this?
HOLLAND: If I could kind of make a visual for you. So, Antarctica is a big ice sheet about the size of the United States. It's only on land, but a
part of it, if you could picture, is like the Gulf of Mexico. The ice sheet is actually in the ocean. And that's the part we are really interested.
It's called West Antarctica. And more specifically, we were at a glacier about the size of Florida called Thwaites. And it's in the ocean.
[13:40:00]
So, you can picture it's on the seafloor but grounded, and the ocean has easy access to it. So, that's the focus of our study and we brought
instruments to figure out how the ocean is affecting it. And I'll add one more piece to that, just to make it the quickest analogy. That glacier,
that particular one is unstable, just like a ball on a hill, if you touch it, it will roll away, a ball in a valley is stable. So, for mathematical
and physical reasons that glacier is unstable and once pushed it might retreat from where it is all the way back to the South Pole.
SREENIVASAN: Put that in perspective for us, because I think it's a hard thing for people to understand just the size and scale. What is the real
risk here? Why is this kind of the doomsday glacier that -- you know, I've seen lots of different titles described to it.
HOLLAND: Right. So, it is a special glacier in that it's the one that's already grounded in the ocean. It's sitting on the seafloor. But more
particularly, a subtle fact is that it's in a basin that is like a bowl like a cereal bowl. So, it gets deeper as you go inland. Glaciers flow
according to their height. So, once you start unraveling it at the coast as you go inland it gets deeper and higher deeper and higher, going faster and
faster. That's a runaway.
And so, right now, that glacier is on the lip of the bowl and it's stabilized on this lip exactly where we positioned our ship by good fortune
this year. And so, once it comes off that lip, which it's currently doing, in computer models it just unravels itself.
So, there's two ingredients here. One is you have the most unstable pre- configured glacier in the world called Thwaites nicknamed Doomsday. But the second thing is you need a trigger. And the trigger showed up around 1940
or 1950 when warm ocean water appeared on the doorstep of the glacier where it meets the ocean. So, previously that was not there otherwise the glacier
would be long gone.
So, it's a two-punch effect. One is you have an unstable glacier and the second thing is of all the places around Antarctica warm water showed up
exactly there. A little bit precarious in its nature and now we have this two-punch.
SREENIVASAN: So, if this glacier kind of accelerated in its melting, what does that mean for someone living in coastal areas like New York or Florida
or California?
HOLLAND: It turns out that what happens in our part of the world in the U.S. affects Antarctica and Antarctica affects us. In particular, Thwaites
represents a couple of feet of sea level rise globally. And now, Hari, if you think about that that's a lot of water, two feet or more all over the
globe. And its neighbors left and right, east and west, most likely would go unstable once the keystone of Thwaites is plucked out of Antarctica. And
so, then you're up to 10 feet and then east Antarctica has more story.
So, it's the changing of our global coastline. Florida parts of it would disappear and Louisiana, North Carolina, et cetera. So, a lot of people
would find that the beach has moved.
SREENIVASAN: So, you took different types of instruments there to Antarctica to try to study this. You were trying to drill holes. You were
sending robots. Tell me a little bit about the science that you were performing to try to get better data.
HOLLAND: I'd like to paint a visual picture. So, think of Antarctica again as a bowl of ice the size of the U.S. and the continental shelf is what's
between the Pacific Ocean, the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. The continental shelf here is quite deep 600-2000 feet because Antarctica has
been pushing it down.
The place where the warm water as it goes around Antarctica in the Antarctic circumpolar current, the curious place that it crashes into
Antarctica is right there in front of Thwaites. But moreover, another thing, a factor to take in, is there's the equivalent of the Grand Canyon
between the continental shelf break and the face of Thwaites and that seems a bit unusual, but if you think about it as Thwaites waxed and waned
through ice ages, it curved out in the seafloor, a riverbed, a channel.
[13:45:00]
And in that channel, that's where the warm water is. Why is it at the bottom? Because it's really salty. It started its life basically in South
Beach, Miami. It's part of the global ocean conveyor belt. Made its way around the world and part of that belt is there in this canyon.
So, in the channel there is a sill which is as the glacier moved back and forth over time it left what I would call a moraine, just a large pile of
debris rock and the warm water just gets over that sill and then goes downhill to Antarctica. So, we put some robots, two robots, which are ocean
temperature and water current speed sensors up and down on a wire. They're busy now going up and down every hour. We'll get back in two years
hopefully and get the data from that. So, then that creates a visual of where is the warm water, how much of it is coming.
The second part was when we got to the glacier, a part of the glacier where it comes out into the ocean begins to float and form a feature known as an
ice shelf. It's a floating extension. And through that ice shelf the ocean is beneath, we drilled about a half a mile through it and the plan was to
put sensors down through the ice shelf down into the cavity of the ocean that's below the ice shelf. That's a special point. That's where the
continental ice begins to unground and float and the ocean's coming the other way and the seafloor is below it. That juncture is the beach of
Antarctica. It's down a half mile but that's the beach and that's where the action is happening.
Unfortunately, as we drill the hole time is running out and it begins to freeze. Our sensors went in and they froze three quarters of the way down
the hole so that failed and so, that mission did not succeed.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I think about that and, look, science is a series of steps and it's not in a perfect line. You -- and I wonder what did this
particular type of failure in this experiment teach you to do better the next time?
HOLLAND: Right, it teaches you -- and I'm glad you asked that. Because only by being here and not succeeding, only -- it doesn't have to be that
way. But failure teaches you a lot and it's taught me that we need to do this in a completely different way. It has to be redesigned, re-engineered.
If we're going to get the data that's going to build a forecast that's going to help people answer the question when will the global coastline
flood or if it will at all.
It's only coming to math and physics to an equation that can make a forecast on your iPhone. That's only coming from data. The way we've been
going about it is not working and so I think we have to lean on world expertise from other industries. I can think of one, oil and gas industry,
which could really go at this problem and solve it far better than we can.
SREENIVASAN: I don't know if that's ironic or fitting that the experts in the industry that is contributing to climate change would be some of the
people who might actually help you drill the hole the best way to get the best data to predict. You know, I don't --
HOLLAND: Yes. And it might be hole drilling or it might be more of observatories on the sea floor. You might be aware that some places on
earth have the sea floor now cabled and robots and explored. And so, I think that's the technology to bring to Antarctica or something like that.
SREENIVASAN: We have famously withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement as of January of 2026. That is sort of official and that's something where
174 countries came together and we tried to agree on at least a shared reality and now we seem to be in a position where that's not the case. At
least the United States does not want to participate in that considering how big we are, how much pollutants that we emit into the air, how
responsible we are for the rest of the planet. Are you hopeful that conferences like this can work?
HOLLAND: Very much so. Right now, the U.S. is going through some dramatic changes in its whole approach to climate. I think part of it, it lies on
the shoulder of scientists for inability to explain the nature of the problem. We make things too distant from people. We use words that
disconnect people from what we're trying to express.
As shocking as it may seem, I personally am not a big fan of the word climate. I don't know if people know what it means. It's weather, long-term
weather. It's the thing that affects you every day of your life.
[13:50:00]
A climate model -- I remember a while ago a congressperson in Antarctica was asking me, why do we fund climate models? And I said, you don't, you
fund weather models. The one you use in Arkansas to -- in order to plan how does the army work, the air force, civil navigation, agriculture. That's
the result of our research that you've supported that produces weather models. And the climate model, the glacier I'm talking about is just an
extension of that.
So, we have to be clear to people what we're trying to do and the benefit to society and to them in their daily lives.
SREENIVASAN: I wonder -- you know, look, some of these shifts could be abrupt as you're saying if this glacier did fall in. When you think about
the longer time horizon of how we perceive danger and threat and weather and how we respond to that, is it too late?
HOLLAND: Not at all. Recent times, yes, we have performed a geoengineering experiment which we are kicking it up another ratchet level next year in
increasing greenhouse gases. It's going to get warmer and warmer and the planet is getting warmer and warmer. So, there is one thought which is,
could you remove the carbon from the atmosphere called mitigation. Turns out that's really difficult to do.
As I breathe here, I'm breathing air that has 50 percent more carbon than it did a century ago. That's a lot. And you can't see it with your eyes
because we're visible but in the infrared, this is increased and put a blanket over the earth.
So, option A is remove the carbon. And we don't seem to be making progress there. Option B is what is called adaptation. And that is you adapt to the
problem. And so, one thing is are we going to live with the problem? We might recognize that part of the issue is that the carbon is increasing and
should we have other approaches?
Now, some people are vehemently opposed to this, and I get it. That brings me to my point, which is in the case of this glacier, Thwaites, the Grand
Canyon that I spoke of and the sill that I spoke of and the warm water creeping over it, we humanity could build a barrier above that, a curtain
and that would stop it. And the glacier does not have a mind of its own. It's not going to dissipate and fall apart if it's not triggered. So,
there's a potential solution. And there are a handful of these around the world.
So, that's something part of this cruise we focused on is, is there a solution to this problem? And I think there just might be. So, that also
gives me some hope. Will this work because we cannot afford to build barriers around the entire coastline of the planet? Can't be done. A few
rich places, New York City might be able to do something, et cetera. Florida cannot.
But here's a little place that you could block and for all intents and purposes, it might stop and or halt the problem to give us time.
SREENIVASAN: Climate scientist from NYU, David Holland, thanks so much for your time.
HOLLAND: Thank you, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, we remember civil rights leader Jesse Jackson who died at the age of 84. Known for his rousing speeches and fierce activism,
Jackson dedicated his life's work to fighting for equality and justice for black Americans and was a close aide to the late Martin Luther King Jr.
Jackson also transformed U.S. politics. His Rainbow Coalition, an alliance formed of people of all racial backgrounds, paved the way for a more
progressive Democratic Party.
And he ran twice for president in 1984 and 1988 in two groundbreaking campaigns. You may recall his iconic speech at the Democratic National
Convention during his second bid, calling on Americans to find common ground as, quote, "The only time that we win is when we come together."
Here's a snippet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE JACKSON: Don't you surrender. Suffering breeds character, character breeds faith. In the end, faith will not disappoint. You must not
surrender. You may or may not get there, but just know that you are qualified when you hold on and hold out. We must never surrender. America
will get better and better. Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive. Keep hope alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And while Jackson's bids were unsuccessful, they blazed the trail for Barack Obama's presidential victory two decades later.
[13:55:00]
As tributes pour in grieving the loss of the champion and a moral voice, we leave you with a short clip of Jackson reciting the poem, "I Am Somebody,"
on "Sesame Street" in the '70s, instilling the message of unwavering self- belief for generations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: I may be small.
CROWD: I may be small.
JACKSON: But I am --
CROWD: But I am --
JACKSON: -- somebody.
CROWD: -- somebody.
JACKSON: I may make a mistake --
CROWD: I may make a mistake --
JACKSON: -- but I am --
CROWD: -- but I am --
JACKSON: -- somebody.
CROWD: -- somebody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Powerful words. Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching. and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
