Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and The McCain Institute Executive Director Evelyn Farkas; Interview with Afghan Women's Rights Activist Mahbouba Seraj; Interview with Former Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko; Interview with Democratic Party of Wisconsin Former Chair and "This is The Plan" Author Ben Wikler. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 13, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I'm asking American partners to sell me 5 percent, 5 percent of missiles, what they have in their stocks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ukraine pleads for more American Patriot missiles as Russia intensifies its deadly attacks. But has Trump's war of choice on Iran left
America's own arsenals dangerously depleted? I speak to former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas.
Then, in the occupied West Bank, Israel deploys its army against its own citizens. Settlers laying siege to Palestinian homes. Jeremy Diamond
reports from the scene.
Plus, five years since Kabul fell to the Taliban, Afghan women and girls have been all but erased from public life. Activist Mahbouba Seraj in Kabul
and former U.S. watchdog for Afghanistan John Sopko join me to reflect on what the United States fallout has ushered in.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN WIKLER, FORMER CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN AND AUTHOR, "THIS IS THE PLAN": What the Democratic Party can do to change is to show up as
part of the life of every neighborhood and every community where people interact face-to-face with human beings whose trust they can earn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- can Wisconsin offer Democrats a winning blueprint? Michel Martin speaks to former State Party Chair Ben Wikler.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
A ripple effect from Washington to Tehran is killing civilians in Ukraine. Yes, the U.S. faces a dwindling stockpile of critical weapons systems,
having massively depleted them in its war on Iran, burning through nearly 80 percent of its THAAD missile inventory and roughly half of its Patriot
interceptors.
The weapons shortage was a factor in President Trump's recent decision to cancel new strikes on Iran, and it cost Ukraine almost, or rather most
acutely, leaving its cities virtually defenseless against Moscow's relentless attacks. Now, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is making an urgent
plea for just a small percentage of what U.S. weapons remain, in an interview with correspondent Nick Paton Walsh.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I'm asking American partners to sell me 5 percent, 5 percent of missiles, what they have in their stocks.
If they sell us 5 percent, we will go through the winter and save people's lives. If they can sell us 10 percent, we will destroy all the Russians'
ballistic missiles.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Dramatic. Russia is exploiting Ukraine's vulnerability, using ballistic missiles to kill civilians in Kyiv, Lviv and elsewhere. Analysts
says it could take the U.S. military years to fully replenish the stockpile of high-end weapons. But President Trump insists there is no shortage,
posting, quote, "the U.S. has massive amounts of munitions, especially of certain types."
For more on what this all means, let's bring in Evelyn Farkas, former deputy assistant secretary of defense and now executive director of the
McCain Institute. Evelyn Farkas, welcome back to the program. What should we believe? Are these, you know, obviously deeply reported stats about
dwindling supplies accurate, or what, you know, the Pentagon and the president are saying, that no, there is no shortage?
EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE MCCAIN INSTITUTE: Well, Christiane, there
obviously has to be a shortage. You know, the United States has been expending an incredible amount of munitions. And that has been actually
revealed to a large extent by the Pentagon. They haven't told us how many they have, but we know that they have been expending a lot.
And, of course, Ukraine is expending a lot of munitions that we provide them against Russia, because Russia has increased their attacks on the
civilian population in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine. So, we know that the number of munitions being used has gone up. So, that probably means that
the stockpiles are down because we have a problem in our defense industrial base. We simply aren't replacing them fast enough.
AMANPOUR: Let's just nail that down, too, because I read alarmingly that even if orders are put in post-haste, they can't make these things or put
them on the, you know, supply line until, like, 2030.
[13:05:00]
FARKAS: Right. I mean, that has to be rectified. There are probably ways to do this, but the government has to make guarantees to our companies that
they will have a steady stream of customers. I don't think we should worry about that because -- I mean, I think they should do that. They shouldn't
worry about doing it.
And then the other thing I think, Christiane, to remember is prioritization. If we can help Ukraine stop Russia, defeat Russia's
aggressive foreign policy, protect civilians, then we're doing something that's in our interest, that is, you know, consistent with our values. And
also, if we weaken Russia, then we will help ourselves in the Middle East and vis-a-vis China because Russia is, of course, working with Iran and
China in the Middle East and elsewhere. And so, a weak Russia will also help us counter those other bad actors.
AMANPOUR: So, Evelyn Farkas, let me just ask you, because you probably heard we played that soundbite part of an interview with CNN's Nick Paton
Walsh, where President Zelenskyy was quite categorically laying down the percentage of U.S. missiles that he wanted to buy. I mean, is that Dream-O-
Vision right now? 5 percent is not nothing. 10 percent is not nothing.
FARKAS: No, although it doesn't sound like a lot, Christiane. And, again, based on what I just said, prioritization, I think it's a pretty good deal
because, of course, it reduces the threat posed by Russia to NATO allies and to the United States. It makes Russia a weaker actor, so they can't
support Iran. And so, I think prioritizing helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia is a pretty good deal if it's only 5 percent or 10 percent
of our inventory.
AMANPOUR: So, that seems to mean that it would require the United States not to go whole hog against Iran. I mean, The New York Times is reporting
that the munitions shortage is what played a role in President Trump's decision not to make another, as he would call it, massive strike on Iran.
Have you -- given the fact that you've been in the Pentagon, in these big positions, have you ever seen this kind of crisis before?
FARKAS: Well, so, first, I have worked on Middle East policy before, so I know, obviously, we have to make tradeoffs among the various areas of
operation. And just to add to what you said about The New York Times reporting, the generals reportedly -- you know, the military commanders
went to President Trump and said, we're running out of munitions, but more to the point, they said, it isn't working. So, even if we expended more
munitions, we aren't going to force the Iranians to do what we want them to do. So, it's better to wait to keep the blockade up and to work through
negotiations.
Now, with regard to these tradeoffs, look, the U.S. government always has to make these tradeoffs. We may be at a worse place than we've been in a
long time in terms of the number of munitions, because it does sound like it's quite low. And we heard under the Biden administration also concerns
of this nature. So, you know, we're talking more than a year ago, there was already concern that our support was depleting munitions.
We have to have enough to make sure that China doesn't decide to do anything risky. Essentially, that's called deterrence, making sure the bad
guys don't take advantage of your depleted munitions. But I don't think we're there yet. I think if we were there, you know, there would be a lot
more agitation among the members of Congress, frankly, and inside the Pentagon that would leak out to the public.
AMANPOUR: OK. But, you know, the president of the Czech Republic, a former NATO official, Petr Pavel, told me just this spring that we are in a pretty
bad state when it comes to Putin looking for weaknesses in Europe, in the United States, weaknesses in NATO, and perhaps trying to provoke. And we
can see, because we've been reporting this for the last several weeks at least, that there's been a lot of incursions by Russian drones and bits and
parts of Russian equipment going into certain NATO countries. Just take a listen to what Petr Pavel told me about a Putin on a totally war footing
and not backing down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETR PAVEL, CZECH PRESIDENT: If you are in a position of Russian leader and you would see weakened Europe, weakened grip of the United States over
European security, I would say, well, that's a good chance. Let's use it.
So, I should -- I would say let's look at it also from the point of view of opportunity for Russia, not necessarily to launch a massive operation in
Europe, but to humiliate NATO by starting, let's say, limited military action. For example, in the Baltics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, you study, obviously, Russia a lot. What would you rate as the odds of Putin doing that?
[13:10:00]
FARKAS: I think that Petr Pavel is correct that the odds are pretty high he could try to do something like this from the fact that he's losing in
Ukraine to try to create the impression among his Russian population that he's already trying to create, which is that this is a war not against
Ukraine, but a war that the West started against Russia. And so, therefore, some kind of provocation that results in a counter reaction from NATO
might, in Putin's mind, be the right pretext to try to get his people behind the war.
I frankly don't think it will work, but we know that Putin's a risk taker, so it is a danger. That doesn't mean we should change anything. If
anything, we should just do more, build up the defenses in Russia, deter Putin and help Ukraine bring this war to an end as fast as possible.
Because one thing is clear, the longer the war goes on, the longer this period of risk, where Putin doesn't know how to get out of a losing
proposition, and that period of risk is a risk to our allies.
AMANPOUR: Just a note here, a Russian military blogger, seeing all these reports that we're talking about, you know, low weapon supplies in the
U.S., wrote, quote, "the situation is very favorable." And you've no doubt been watching, Russia really on the offensive.
I mean, the other week, Ukraine could not take out a single one of the, I think it was 28 missiles launched, ballistic missiles launched at cities by
Russia, could not intercept any of them. People are dying. And now, Putin is, you know, hitting tankers with grain, with other things. He seems to be
really sensing a moment of advantage.
FARKAS: Christiane, I don't think there is advantage here. I actually think that the Ukrainians still hold the advantage and the momentum because
the Ukrainians are still hitting the oil depots, the oil refineries deep inside of Russia. They're taking out the logistics chain that leads from
Russia proper to Crimea. And they're doing things to weaken the Russian economy.
And frankly, the right-wing bloggers have been complaining that Putin's war is being lost by Putin. They've started criticizing President Putin, which
is why you saw him suddenly go out and travel across Russia, including to disputed islands, Japanese islands. But never mind that. What he's trying
to do is send a signal that, you know, he has popular support, which he doesn't.
AMANPOUR: And the Japanese reported, you know, they were mighty peeved by that visit, as you can imagine. But I want to ask you on the bigger
picture. Isn't the U.S. doctrine, military doctrine, to be able to fight two wars at the same time? And if that is the case still, can the U.S. do
that right now?
FARKAS: Well, that is a good question, Christiane, because that's been traditionally the perspective coming from the Pentagon, which then the
National Security Council would endorse, that the United States should be able to fight two major wars and then a smaller one, perhaps.
We don't know what the Trump administration has said that they are aiming towards and what we are capable of doing. But I would argue that we should
not aim to, you know, fight more than one war. Although, of course, let's not kid ourselves. These wars are linked. Russia and Iran are working
together in the Middle East. Russia is providing intelligence. Russia is providing their upgraded drones. And then, of course, Iran provided the
original drones to Russia, continues to support Russia, not to mention, of course, what China has been doing behind the scenes and then also what
North Korea is doing. So, all of these countries are working together in all theaters.
AMANPOUR: It's really important to keep our focus on this. Evelyn Farkas of the McCain Institute, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
And next, we turn to the occupied West Bank, where for days Israeli settlers have surrounded three Palestinian homes. The settlers have cut off
access to the area and are besieging the families trying to get them to leave. The Israeli army has been called in to disperse them, as Jeremy
Diamond reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The view from this Palestinian home is the same from every angle. Israeli settlers
everywhere you look. For days now, they've set up camp and surrounded three homes on this hilltop in the occupied West Bank in a bid to force the
residents out and take over.
They've cut water and power lines and have tried to stop anyone from approaching. All of this is illegal, and yet this is what happened when
Palestinian residents first called the Israeli military. The soldiers joined the settlers in prayer.
LOUI RIDI, PALESTINIAN-AMERICAN, OWNS HOUSE BESIEGED BY SETTLERS: They start hugging the settlers and they start praying with the settlers and
absolutely did nothing to protect my brother and his son.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Loui Ridi owns one of those houses. A Palestinian- American, he's watched all of this unfold from Ohio.
[13:15:00]
And this is what he saw on Wednesday. Israeli military trying and ultimately failing to remove the settlers from the area. Hours later, we
drive up the hill to see if anything has changed.
DIAMOND: So, these are actually the three homes that have been besieged by these settlers for four days now. We're going to try and climb up this hill
and see if we can get past the settlers who are blocking the area.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The settlers are still there, and so are two Israeli soldiers who order us to stop and turn off our vehicle. The soldier tells
me this is now a closed military area, and that we're interfering with military activity.
DIAMOND: Why are we interfering and not them? I don't understand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can contact the military spokesperson. This is a closed military area.
DIAMOND (voice-over): An IDF spokesperson said the order does apply to the settlers, but it's clearly not being enforced. The IDF said it would soon
deploy more troops to the area to restore order.
DIAMOND: They're telling us that it's a closed military zone that we're not allowed to be here, but at the same time, we're seeing multiple Israeli
settlers who are here, who are not being made to leave, and who are continuing to block the access to these homes.
DIAMOND (voice-over): Down the hill, we call Loui's brother Qusai, who's been staying in his home.
DIAMOND: Qusai, this is the closest we're able to get to your home. Unfortunately, how are you doing? Do you still have supplies?
DIAMOND (voice-over): The food I have is going to run out in two to three days. Beyond that, I have no food, nothing, he says. But at the same time,
even if I run out of food, I will not leave the house.
DIAMOND: So, do you have any hope that these settlers are actually going to be kicked out of this area?
DIAMOND (voice-over): Honestly, from what I saw today, the settlers were monstrous, he explains. They even attacked the Israeli army, forcing them
to fire sound grenades and tear gas. They have their eyes set on the house and this hilltop. They want to take it.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The next day, Israeli soldiers temporarily order Qusai out of the house, leaving him to move in with his neighbor. The
soldiers say they will use it as a base to operate against the settlers, but Qusai's fears aren't abstract. In recent weeks, settlers in this area
have set fire to a mosque and besieged this home.
DIAMOND: This right here is why those families are afraid to leave their home. You can see Israeli settlers on the rooftop of this house here. Three
weeks ago, Palestinians were living in that house, but it's been taken over by Israeli settlers.
DIAMOND (voice-over): With a messianic flag now flying above it, these settlers want their presence known from one hill top to the next.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And Jeremy is joining us now. Jeremy, it's wild. I mean, I can't -- it's incredible what you've just been showing us. And we know and you
know that if the IDF wants to get people out of their way, they can do it. And there's not like a huge number of those settlers. What more can you
tell us?
DIAMOND (on camera): Yes, no, you're exactly right, Christiane. I mean, we've certainly seen today that the Israeli military deployed a lot more
soldiers to this area. The question is, what are they actually going to do there?
We saw initially they actually entered Palestinians' homes. They kicked people out to establish these outposts where they said they would fight the
settlers, essentially. That decision was ultimately reversed. The soldiers left their houses. And so, far, we haven't actually seen these soldiers
remove or detain the settlers who are in the area. I spoke with the owner of that home that we were just showing in our report.
And as of a couple hours ago, there were settlers in front of his home that he could see on his security cameras. And as you said, Christiane, we have
seen the Israeli military. We've seen the Israeli border police in action when they want to remove people from a certain area. They have a variety of
riot dispersal methods at their disposition.
They have the ability to detain people in large numbers when they want to. But for some reason or another, when it comes to these Israeli settlers,
the Israeli military has yet to use those means at its disposal. Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Yes, well, Jeremy, thank you. Keep an eye on it. We know that the policy is to move Palestinians out and to -- I mean, I'm saying this
and others have -- to ethnically cleanse and to grab as much territory as they can. And this is -- I mean, it's a great reporting. Thank you so much
indeed.
Coming up, five years on from the fall of Kabul, how the lives of women and girls there have been transformed by Taliban rule since the disastrous
American withdrawal. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: This weekend marks five years since the fall of Kabul to the Taliban and America's subsequent chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The
images are hard to forget. Desperate people running on the tarmac, trying to flee. Crowds piling up outside the airport gates and the gun-toting
Taliban hoisting their flags, parading through the streets.
Five years later, Afghanistan is isolated. It's warring with neighboring Pakistan. Its people are desperately poor and girls are banned from
secondary school and women, the U.N. says, have been erased from public life.
Mahbouba Seraj is a long-time women's rights activist who has defied pressure from the Taliban and has stayed in Kabul for the past five years.
But now, she says, the pressure may have become too much. She joins us from Kabul. Also with us is John Sopko, who served for years as the independent
special inspector general for the U.S. for Afghanistan, the official watchdog of the U.S. government. Both of you, welcome to the program.
Let me start with you, Mahbouba Seraj in Kabul. I said that you're facing the pressure and you may not any longer be able to, you know, open your
shelters and keep your help and support for Afghan women. Tell me where that stands.
MAHBOUBA SERAJ, AFGHAN WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Hello, Christina. Thank you, Ms. Amanpour, very much for inviting me.
Well, I mean, it took a long time. From the time my shelters were actually established, that was in 2003 in Kabul. And it lived for until 2025,
December, when it was closed by force. And from then on, I don't have a shelter. And so, life for me in Kabul, for the reason I was here, which was
the protection of the abused women of Afghanistan, is I believe this is terminated.
I cannot continue working this way because I haven't been any help to any one of the Afghan women that they needed me. I haven't been able to do it
because nobody allows me to. And the women, you know, are -- all of their rights have been taken away from them. And if anybody says anything about
it, we are wrong. We are not supposed to say it, but this is exactly what has happened.
And I really -- for the last time, because this is the time of the year when, you know, everybody is coming and they want to know about what's
going on with the Taliban in the fifth year. That's why, you know, I'm really grateful to you for the past --
AMANPOUR: I hear the distress, obviously, in your voice. Let me ask you, John Sopko, after all these years and all that you've done to take account
and keep account of what's going on behalf of the U.S. government. How are you feeling five years later after all this money, all this effort by the
U.S. and all the progress that was made there, especially for women and girls?
JOHN SOPKO, FORMER SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION: Well, thank you for inviting me, Christiane. I'm depressed
and saddened. I know a lot of Afghans who haven't made it out. I know a lot of women who haven't made it out, who are still hiding or they're stuck in
the pipeline. So, it is a sad, depressing time. And it's tragic. It's basically tragic. I mean, it is -- to be very blunt, it's hell if you're a
woman in Afghanistan.
[13:25:00]
And I don't see the International Community. I definitely don't see this government, the Trump administration doing anything, anything at all about
it. If anything, they're creating a bigger mess for the poor people of Afghanistan.
AMANPOUR: Well, you might mean because of the, you know, cutback of USAID and even those humanitarian projects being cut back. So, Mahbouba, can you
tell us what it's like for women? Some can work. I know some are on the television. They have to be masked. But by and large, they are erased. I
mean, I read somewhere today that some women don't even leave their house more than twice a month.
SERAJ: Yes, that's true. Why should they go on the streets? What for? I mean, they really -- they don't have to go. They don't need to go. They
don't -- because they're not welcome. You know, they're treated badly if they ever get their hands on them, you know, by the wise and virtue people.
And then, you know -- and to do what? They don't have money to buy anything. They don't have any place to go to. They're not allowed to. So,
why should they walk on the streets? They don't want to get out. So, they're staying home.
But this is all done by force. This is the thing that is going on and nobody wants to admit it. It's by force, Ms. Amanpour. It's not because
they are willing to do that. It's by force. And it's been happening by force from day one. It's been happening by force. The education has been
taken away from them.
AMANPOUR: When you say --
SERAJ: The right to --
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SERAJ: Everything is taken away from them by force.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. Yes, I -- you've clarified what I was going to ask you. Yes. By force of the Taliban making these edicts and refusing to allow
women and girls, despite the promises they make. Can we all please remember that in 2021, when they came into Kabul and had their first press
conference, they said that they were different and they were going to allow a different kind of Taliban rules. And I witnessed back in, you know, '96
when they first took over.
But let me ask you, John, we're going to go back a few years now to 2021. And what President Biden said about the August 31 date, which he pushed up
to August 15th. And let's just take a listen. And I'll ask you about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: In April, I made a decision to end this war. As part of that decision, we set the date of August 31st for American
troops to withdraw. The assumption was that more than 300,000 Afghan national security forces that we had trained over the past two decades and
equipped would be a strong adversary in their civil wars with the Taliban. That assumption that the Afghan government would be able to hold on for a
period of time beyond military drawdown turned out not to be accurate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Really, yes, turned out not to be right. You were trying to sound the alarm, John, back then. Did it fall on deaf ears?
SOPKO: Yes, it did. And it's interesting about that 300,000-figure. That was a figure put out by every administration, particularly the Biden
administration. It was totally false. We told them it was totally false years before. We did not have a good accounting. So, to hear that, I think
within hours of the collapse of Afghanistan, I remember I think it was the PR person for the Defense Department was claiming I have evidence.
He didn't have any evidence. I mean, if he had read any of our reports, going back to almost when I started 12 years before, he would not have made
that. It was happy talk. And that's the unfortunate thing. And you see the same thing right now with Iran. It's happy talk. You know, we're blasting
them out. Everything's going well and all that. Well, there's nobody actually doing oversight in Iraq -- in Iran, excuse me. Nobody really doing
effective oversight anymore.
So, the American people and Congress, shame on them, are not doing the oversight to find out what's going on there and what's going on in
Afghanistan. That is still --
AMANPOUR: OK.
SOPKO: We still have responsibility.
AMANPOUR: John, let me just ask you, because I was just talking about Iran and other issues with former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas and about the
U.S. munitions running low, partly because of the war in Afghanistan, in Iran, et cetera.
But what is not being held accountable? What accounting is not being done that you're concerned about over the Iran war?
[13:30:00]
SOPKO: Well, I'm shocked and I think everyone is. And, Christiane, you must be, too. Here we have a Congress whose job is to oversee the executive
branch. Here we have a Congress, particularly the appropriators, the chairman of the Senate appropriations, the chairman of the House
appropriations, who control the money there. They control the money. And you're telling me all of a sudden, they discover we're out of weapons? I
mean, what is going on? I have not seen any effective oversight from Congress. I have not seen any effective oversight from the IGs after they
fired 16 of us back in 2025. Those are simple things. I mean, this is common sense.
And then in the midst of this war, Congress goes on a recess for a number of months. I mean, this is like, Christiane, if you had a house and it's
raining and you've got a hole in the roof and you call somebody to come in to fix it and he says, oh, OK, I got to leave now. I got to go on vacation
for two months. What are the Americans supposed to think about their Congress?
Remember, Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch. Where have they been since this war in Iran started?
AMANPOUR: Yes. And I mean, going back to your role on Afghanistan, you were there all the time briefing Congress, telling them, you know, dollars
and cents about what's going where and what they should be alert for. And you were very diligent about it, along with all the other IGs who had other
responsibilities.
But I want to go back quickly to Mahbouba Seraj, because back in 2022, i.e., one year after the Taliban took over, I went over and tried to, you
know, do a status report. And I sat down with Sirajuddin Haqqani, who was ostensibly the main leader outside of the Kandahar, you know, theocracy.
And this is what he told me. He told me that women and girls -- don't worry, don't worry. Women and girls will get their rights. They will be
able to go to school. Just take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Many tell us that they feel that the Taliban wants them to stay at home. And they're afraid of some of the edicts that has a very chilling
effect.
SIRAJUDDIN HAQQANI, AFGHAN INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): We keep naughty women at home.
AMANPOUR: OK. You need to explain that joke, because people will think that's official policy. And maybe it is. What does that mean, naughty?
HAQQANI (through translator): What I am saying is that the International Community is raising the issue of women's right a lot. Here in Afghanistan,
there are Islamic, national, cultural and traditional principles. Within the limit of those principles, we are working to provide them with
opportunities to work. And that is our goal.
By saying naughty women, it was a joke referring to those naughty women who are controlled by some other sides to bring the current government into
question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, Mahbouba Seraj, it's obviously turned out to be a cruel joke on the Afghan women. The promises, as I said at the early press
conferences, what he said to me, and he actually allegedly is one of the more willing to let girls go to school and have women work. They do in his
interior ministry.
Are you surprised that those promises that the Taliban made, that 2.0 would be different from 1.0, just simply collapsed?
SERAJ: Yes, I am and I am not, to tell you the honest truth. Because the world knew the Taliban. 2.0 and 1.0 and all of that doesn't really mean
anything. I mean, these people are not -- they are not a political group. They are a religious group. And religion is not going to change because,
you know, people are coming and they are younger and they are older or whatever and they're (INAUDIBLE). No, that doesn't happen. Because they
have an ideology, and they work according to that ideology. And that ideology is not going to let them to give women any kind of freedom. That's
very simple.
But the thing that I want you to please, you know, tell the world. We know that the world did not want to hear anything about the Afghan women
negatively from the government of Taliban. They didn't. They were ready to say everything is fine, so we are going to give the women Afghanistan and
all of its problems to the Taliban and we want to forget it. That's where the world was and that's where the world is today.
[13:35:00]
And that's why whatever is happening in Afghanistan, nobody really can talk about it because nobody can really know exactly what is going on. And this
is it.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SERAJ: This is it. This is what is happening to the women of Afghanistan. Ask Mr. Sopko. He knows that. He knows that. And this is exactly what's
happening in Afghanistan.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
SERAJ: Whatever the --
AMANPOUR: Yes. As he said it's a nightmare.
SERAJ: -- is a little bit of reality. That's it. Not the whole of it. No. And the world does not want to hear it.
AMANPOUR: John Sopko --
SERAJ: Really.
AMANPOUR: John Sopko, if the world doesn't want to hear about the women and the girls of Afghanistan, and there are millions of girls who are
denied secondary education, what about at least the Afghans who worked for and with the American government? You're trying to help protect them. A lot
of them are losing their status in the United States. The U.S. is apparently trying to farm them out elsewhere, knowing how bad it would be
to send them back to Afghanistan under these circumstances. What is the status of these Afghans who so bravely did help the United States for
decades?
SOPKO: Well, the status is almost as bad as for the women. The there's hundreds of thousands who are still in Afghanistan who have tried to come
here. We had almost 200,000, 175,000 who were actually in the pipeline, who had actually done all the paperwork, who had been vetting. And the thing to
remember when you hear somebody say, oh, these people are dangerous, the vetting system that we were using is the best vetting system ever, it was
invented by Trump administration the first time around. And if anything, it was enhanced.
So, the pipeline is shut down. All assistance is shut down. We have people dying in Afghanistan right now. We have people who support it. And it's not
just police. It's not just troops, journalists. It's everybody who believed in us. And you know something, this is a national security issue. Because
our promise to these people was similar to the promise that President Ford made, and we brought in a million people after Vietnam. We have about
150,000, 160,000 we brought in. And there's a couple hundred thousand still waiting.
Do you think anyone is going to believe and trust the United States the next time we need allies to fight, whether it's Ukraine, Iran, or whatever,
after the way we treated the Afghans?
AMANPOUR: Yes, well -- yes. Well, I can hear the desperation in your voice after all that you've done to make this, you know, work out. And also, for
Mahbouba Seraj after all she's done and now contemplating leaving Afghanistan. It is a tragic and unhappy fifth anniversary, and we thank you
both for talking to us about it. We're going to keep the focus on. Thank you.
Still to come, "How to End America's Meltdown and Save Democracy," that's the title of Ben Wikler, former Wisconsin Democratic chair, about his book.
He shares his plan after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: This week, Americans in six states voted in primaries to choose their party's candidates for the upcoming fall election.
[13:40:00]
So, what did the results reveal? Trump-endorsed candidates were successful despite his low approval ratings, and the Democratic contests highlight a
divide between progressives and moderates. Well, our next guest says Wisconsin offers a blueprint for rebuilding Democratic power from the
ground up. Ben Wikler is the state's former Democratic chair, and he's joining Michel Martin now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Ben Wikler, thank you so much for talking with us.
BEN WIKLER, FORMER CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF WISCONSIN AND AUTHOR, "THIS IS THE PLAN": Michel, great to be with you.
MARTIN: Lots of news to talk about, but I want to start with your book titled, "This is The Plan: How to End America's Meltdown and Save
Democracy." You ran the Democratic Party in Wisconsin for six years, and out of that experience, you have the notion that, you know, as Wisconsin
goes, so goes the country. And that Wisconsin has lessons to offer the country. So, the first question I wanted to ask you is, what is the
Democratic Party doing wrong?
WIKLER: Well, at a very basic level, as a country, we've all been pulled apart from each other. We've been pulled into our phones. Community has
collapsed around the nation. People are less involved with their neighbors. They spend less time face-to-face with each other. And the Democratic Party
has had the exact same thing over the last century. It's eroded and eroded to the point where most people's experience of the Democratic Party is
fundraising text messages and urgent emails and never actually conversations with human beings.
So, the central kind of argument in my book about what the Democratic Party can do to change is to show up as part of the life of every neighborhood
and every community where people interact face-to-face with human beings whose trust they can earn. If you do that, then you're able to pull people
together in the face of, you know, attacks by a would-be authoritarian or any other political crisis that might come up. That's what we've been doing
in Wisconsin, and it has had a huge effect year over year. And that's something that everyone can get involved in changing for the whole country.
MARTIN: One of the arguments you make in the book is that, actually, elections, even in a country as big as the United States, are actually
decided by very few people.
WIKLER: Yes.
MARTIN: How did you come to that realization?
WIKLER: That's the paradox of this moment. It's a country of 340 million people, and yet Republican control of the House of Representatives came
down to 7,309 votes across three congressional districts. And it's even narrower than that, because the rules for how congressional maps are drawn,
those come down to state Supreme Court races and state legislative races.
I write in the book about the North Carolina state Supreme Court race in 2020 that came down to 401 votes. Almost no one was paying attention. But
that set in motion a chain of events that led to the gerrymandering of that state that gave Republicans three additional congressional seats that made
Mike Johnson the Speaker of the U.S. House right now. There are elections like that all the time that are obscure, where a tiny, tiny shift in the
number of votes, the number of people who turn out who they vote for, can topple the outcome one way or the other, that wind up having huge ripple
effects on the entire American political system.
And my argument is, if you want to change the system itself, zero in on those all-important, super-close, super-obscure elections that can change
everything.
MARTIN: All right. Well, let's talk about Wisconsin. As you and I are speaking now, big races, just decided -- well, the primaries, anyway. In
Wisconsin, a candidate who is described as the more moderate, David Crowley, he narrowly defeated a candidate who is identified -- self-
identified as being with the Democratic Socialist Movement, Francesca Hong. The polls showed that the Democratic Socialist candidate was way ahead,
that isn't how things turned out.
So, what happened here? Is just the polling just way off, or were there other things that affected the dynamics of the race?
WIKLER: So, polls in primaries are notoriously inaccurate and very often miss the mark. That said, the polls that suggested Francesca Hong had about
40 percent in the Wisconsin governor's primary were accurate. There were a bunch of undecided voters, and it looks like they overwhelmingly went for
David Crowley in the final stretch. He won by less than 4,000 votes.
The most striking thing about the result to me is that both Francesca Hong and David Crowley, who is now going to be the Democratic nominee for
governor in Wisconsin, they both got more votes than any Democratic candidate for governor in a primary in recent memory.
The level of overall engagement by Democrats, people with every candidate fighting for change to try to make life more affordable, David Crowley and
Francesca Hong talking about childcare and healthcare and housing, things that everyone needs, they generated a way higher level of turnout than the
Republicans in their primary. They generated a higher level of turnout than in 2018, which was a Democratic wavier. Republican turnout in Wisconsin
went down from 2018 to 2026 in the Republican primary.
[13:45:00]
And that tells me that there's an engaged electorate. There are a ton of people who are, you know, thinking about the policies they want and
thinking about how to win. They -- you know, they might have disagreed in that moment, but the day after the primary, Francesca Hong and David
Crowley had brunch together with Attorney General Josh Kaul and, you know, a whole bunch of other Democrats and candidates, and there's going to be
unity going forward. And that's what we saw in Wisconsin last year. That's what we saw in Michigan.
I really do think that there's a movement that is -- you know, has its fights in the primaries, and then we'll come together to say what is
happening to this whole country, what is happening in states like Wisconsin right now, where the economy is being rigged for the people at the top and
democracy is being smashed so the public can't do anything about it. That is not OK. We need something better and different.
MARTIN: One of the reasons it stands out is that this is a different result than in Michigan, where the more progressive candidate, Abdul El-
Sayed, a doctor, prevailed over the candidate who was described as sort of more moderate, the establishment candidate who's a member of Congress, and
then he won the Democratic primary for the governor's race.
In Minnesota, the current lieutenant governor won the primary for the Senate seat over the candidate who was a member of Congress who was also
described as the more moderate. So, you have this kind of mixed result.
So, two questions I have for you. Are these lanes that we're describing overstated? Are these candidates really that different?
WIKLER: The differences in a primary always seem the very, very biggest the day after and the day before and the day of the election itself. Within
a month, people are going to recognize that in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Minnesota, all these candidates are running to try to unrig the economy, to
make this country work for working people, and that they're trying to fight back against this cabal of very wealthy and powerful people who are trying
to rig the system for their own corrupt benefit.
And that is the message that will reach, you know, voters that are on the fence about whether to vote or which party to vote for, and that's a
unifying Democratic message that you see in the reddest and purpliest and bluest places across the country. That is the central question in this
election right now.
You know, Trump is building arches to himself in ballrooms and, you know, handing out billions of dollars to his friends and saying that he loves
inflation and he laughs at the little man with the $4 gas that he talks about, and he gets every Republican in Congress to rubber stamp the war in
Iran that has sent the cost of gas and groceries spiraling. He is just very clearly on the side of himself and his friends at everybody's expense.
And in the states, sometimes like Wisconsin and Michigan that voted for Trump twice, there's a real sense that people have given Trump a shot. It
is not working. The problems that they are crying out to be addressed in their own lives, how incredibly hard it is to be able to afford childcare
if you're a parent, they want someone who's actually going to do something about that.
And wherever you land within the Democratic spectrum, even some independent candidates, there's a laser focus on delivering for -- you know, for
working folks that I think is going to carry Democrats in 2026. And then all of that helps inform what's going to happen nationwide in 2028.
MARTIN: OK. So, I started by asking what have Democrats been doing wrong? What have Republicans been doing right, or at least what is the Trump
administration, what is President Trump as a candidate, what has he been doing right to persuade this many people that he's on their side?
WIKLER: First, it's very clear that Trump as president right now is not following through on his campaign promises. He's not delivering for people
and he's wildly unpopular. People are furious about what he and his kind of whole MAGA team are doing.
But he did win this election. And you have to ask yourself why that is. Essentially, the people who didn't hear from either candidate, they just
knew in their gut that what was happening to them and their families wasn't working. They were the people who voted to change the channel. And they're
already ready to change the channel again, because Trump is not delivering what people were asking for.
I think there's a deeper dysfunction though. And I think the Republican strategy has fed into this dysfunction. Dysfunction is that our government
is rigged to not deliver change that benefits regular folks economically. There are all these ways to be able to block it. You have the U.S. Supreme
Court that is essentially carrying out a far right and corporate agenda day by day.
You have a U.S. Senate that has a filibuster that allows a handful of senators to block, you know, anything that they think might help them gain
power in the next election. You have a U.S. House that is ultra- gerrymandered. You have Citizens United that allows unlimited corporate spending. And the effect of all of that is that when Republicans come in,
they can give tax cuts to the rich. Those can't be filibustered. They can appoint right wing judges. Those are their top two agenda items. So, the
right gets what it wants.
Eventually things go haywire. The end of the Bush administration, the financial crisis, the end of Trump, it was COVID. People vote Democrats
into office. And then Democrats can't deliver on big parts of their agenda. So, voters who are asking for change, they can't get it from Democrats
because the system is built to block the change. And when Republicans come in, the change that comes, they don't like.
And that's why we have change election after change election after change election without the kind of change that people are actually crying out
for. That to me is a fundamental problem in our system.
[13:50:00]
And a lot of the focus of my book is how we unrig the system to allow democracy to actually happen so people can get what they're voting for.
MARTIN: But there are people who would say, actually the real issue is twofold. One is that Democrats are afraid of race, that they treat, you
know, African-Americans in particular and perhaps Latinos as well are people of color the same way that Republicans have traditionally treated
Christian evangelicals, which is we're happy to see you at election time, but please don't bother us with your agenda during the rest of the year.
So, one, it's race.
And, two, it's that Democrats are beholden to some of the same corporate interests that they criticize Republicans for being beholden to. And what
would you say to that?
WIKLER: I would say that Democrats have come so agonizingly close to actually getting this done. And in 2021, there were two U.S. senators who
were not ready to change the filibuster, which, by the way, for the first 80 years, the filibuster was only ever used to defeat civil rights
legislation. That this is a coalition party where the vast majority of Democrats do understand the central role that racism and racist attacks
have played in the rights divide and conquer strategy to enrich the rich.
It means that in primary elections that are happening across the country and will happen again in 2028, if you're an engaged Democratic voter,
you've got to ask the candidates whether they're willing to take action to change the system itself to ensure that, you know, no matter your race,
that everyone actually has a vote. That everyone's vote actually counts.
You have to ask whether they're willing to change a system that benefits the biggest donors instead of the general public. But most Democrats
already are. We are very close to being able to get where we need to make major structural reforms.
MARTIN: Well, I'm going to ask you to tell us the plan because that's the title of your book, "This is the Plan." So, what's the plan?
WIKLER: First step in the plan, recognize the country is on fire. I have a fire extinguisher on the cover of the book. The first fire in this moment
is a government that is testing out ways to subvert democracy itself to stop the public from being able to choose who wields power, who holds
office. And the most critical safeguard against an authoritarian, you know, all the way breakthrough in this country is actually state and local
governments in 2026.
And the reason for that is the Constitution puts the control of the election system into the hands of state governments regulated by federal
law, but it's states that administer elections. This has been, you know, throughout our history, the kind of readout of segregationists and white
supremacists, people who tried to block, you know, anyone who didn't look like Donald Trump from being able to cast a ballot.
But right now, it means that if Donald Trump tries to seize the voting machines in Fulton County, Georgia, that it's actually state officials and
can be state courts that can block those kinds of efforts. This is -- it's very clear that Trump is fantasizing about doing this. He's talking about,
you know, invoking the National State of Emergency, the Insurrection Act, but state governments can be the line of defense.
So, in 2026, step one of the plan is to ensure that the people who will run the elections in 2028 are people who believe in democracy itself. And that
can mean Keisha Lance Bottoms as governor of Georgia. It can mean David Crowley as governor of Wisconsin. It means secretaries of state. I mean,
state Supreme Court justices. Those are the key decision makers that will determine whether democracy gets through this moment of extreme peril.
That's step one.
Step two is in 2028 for people who believe in expanding democracy to win a federal trifecta, the presidency, the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate. States
still matter enormously as well in that moment. But that is the one chance that we have coming up to win a unified federal government that takes this
crisis seriously.
And then step three, in 2029, everyone who volunteered, who donated, who got involved, who voted to elect that government that wants to actually end
America's meltdown, all those people need to stay mobilized to press the government to actually take action. And that means ending the filibuster,
banning partisan gerrymandering. I argue for proportional representation in the U.S. House, U.S. Supreme Court reform. I think term limits on the U.S.
Supreme Court, so it's not kind of a locked in partisan body in the way it is right now.
And then there's also a plan to turn the Electoral College into a kind of sideshow by getting states to enact laws that make the winner of the
national popular vote the president of the United States. And while we're at it, D.C. statehood and referendum for statehood in Puerto Rico, all
those policies, if you take them together, they dismantle the system of control that the right has imposed on the country over a period of decades
and make every voter in this country actually have a voice in who is the U.S. House majority, who is the U.S. Senate majority, who becomes the
president of the United States, and it allows Congress and the president to pass laws without having a U.S. Supreme Court that only strikes down laws
and executive actions when they're done by Democrats.
MARTIN: Ben Wikler, thank you so much for talking with us.
WIKLER: Thank you so much, Michel.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, a box seat at the proms with one of the world's greatest conductors, Gustavo Dudamel, is in London for this year's annual
classical music festival at the Royal Albert Hall. And when I sat down with him this week, he told me about the importance of finding joy and harmony
in life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GUSTAVO DUDAMEL, VENEZUELAN CONDUCTOR: For myself, in this noisy world, what is my exercise every day? You know, to balance my harmony. Every day,
you know, I take my time to be in silence, but not in silence completely like a silence that we understand. It's a lot of sounds. It's a lot of
voices there. And how I can balance that, how I can say something that that maybe can heal and not destroy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You can watch his incredible conducting and our full interview on tomorrow's program. That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and
goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
