Antony J. Blinken Sits Down with Christiane Amanpour: A Deep Dive on Global Affairs for CNN and PBS

A segment of this interview was broadcasted on January 15, 2025, and was previously transcribed and released. The following transcript represents the Secretary’s interview, as aired on January 16, 2025, in its entirety.

QUESTION: Ben Gvir and his associates – they are radical firebrands that even the U.S. has imposed sanctions on previously. They are advocating for settlements. They claim they wish to remain in Gaza. The infrastructure being developed by the IDF in Gaza suggests a long-term presence in certain areas. Can you confirm, is the U.S. government confident that Israel will withdraw or that it will remain for, I don’t know, months or years afterwards?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: What I can convey to you is this, Christiane: First, it’s our stance, and it has been very clearly stated, including principles I articulated months ago at the onset of the conflict in Tokyo, that there cannot be a lasting occupation of Gaza, that Israel must withdraw, and that the boundaries of Gaza shouldn’t be altered. And of course, it indisputably cannot be managed by Hamas, which employs it as a hub for terrorism.

The ceasefire agreement necessitates the withdrawal of Israeli forces and then, assuming a permanent ceasefire is established, a complete exit. But what’s crucial about this post-conflict strategy is the necessity to reach an agreement on its provisions, as there must be an arrangement that reassures Israelis that they can permanently withdraw without the risk of Hamas reoccupying and to avoid a recurrence of the past decade.

QUESTION: I want to inquire from a broader perspective, as I was actually somewhat, I don’t know, taken aback by President-elect Trump’s retweeting of a statement from a former U.S. official, Jeffrey Sachs, whom you are well acquainted with. He essentially labeled Benjamin Netanyahu as a mean, rude SOB, dark and the like, and implied that it is he who is controlling the situation, not the U.S. government. The U.S. government, the most significant supporter of Israel, has been unable to influence the situation in any substantial way.

(A), what is your take on President Trump? Do you think that’s indicative of a message that he intends to be tougher than perhaps you are? And also, do you believe that the tail has frequently been wagging the dog, such that regardless of your statements about upholding international law, facilitating humanitarian aid, and all that – your clients have largely disregarded your requests? So I am curious if you believe it’s time to revisit the question that former President Trump posed during particularly tense negotiations –

SECRETARY BLINKEN: So –

QUESTION: – when he inquired: Who is the effing superpower here?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: So first, my focus is less on individual personalities and more on the policies. What is a particular country actually executing? It doesn’t matter who the person is. What actions are they undertaking?

Moreover, I think what has been misinterpreted globally is attributing to a single person or perhaps a small group of individuals the policies pursued by Israel that many find unappealing. I believe this reflects the mindset of 70, 80, or even 90 percent of Israelis following the trauma of October 7th, and to attribute this to any single individual, I believe, is erroneous and may lead to incorrect conclusions.

This is the current state of the nation, and the policies being pursued by the government genuinely reflect the populace, even – even many who oppose the prime minister. So that’s a vital point, and understanding it is crucial. You have a traumatized society, just as there exists a traumatized Palestinian society due to the atrocities that children, women, and men have had to endure in Gaza, trapped in this crossfire initiated by Hamas, which they did not instigate and are powerless to halt.

QUESTION: I’m not going to bring up the genocide question since I’ve heard your response. You don’t believe that’s the case regarding Israel, although a prominent U.S. Israeli scholar specializing in genocide and Holocaust studies has informed me that he believes, after a year of research on this, that it fits that description.

However, I will ask about your own officials here at the State Department. Over a dozen have resigned, expressing profound concerns that American laws governing military aid have not been adhered to.

Additionally, I want to address the Israelis themselves who are speaking about war crimes. Moshe Yaalon, the former defense secretary under Netanyahu, a member of Likud, not a bleeding-heart liberal – states that ethnic cleansing and war crimes are occurring, and he has reiterated that stance.

The truth seekers at Haaretz have uncovered accounts from Israeli soldiers who have expressed that, in the recent past – and currently – they have even considered children in certain areas as terrorists; courageous soldiers from Breaking the Silence are documenting testimony from IDF members returning and who – many of them, some of them, are troubled by their actions. Are you prepared to declare that war crimes have been perpetrated by Israel?

SECRETARY BLINKEN: I cannot comment on specific cases. What I can assert is that we have had apprehensions – more than just apprehensions – about the manner in which Israel has conducted its operations, recognizing, first and foremost, that this is an unparalleled context, one we haven’t encountered recently, where a population is encircled within Gaza. In nearly every other situation worldwide, people can escape harm. They typically become refugees in adjoining nations. That’s undesirable, but preferable to being ensnared in the midst of such a turmoil.

Secondly, uniquely, you face an adversary that purposefully integrates itself among the civilian populace in and beneath apartments, under schools, mosques, and hospitals. This does not absolve Israel of the responsibility or the duty to act in accordance with international law –

QUESTION: Seventeen-thousand children –

SECRETARY BLINKEN: – but it certainly complicates the situation greatly.

Thus, we scrutinize this with immense caution; Israel examines it thoroughly as well. There are hundreds of cases currently in the Israeli legal framework. Those cases, I believe and trust, will proceed to evaluate precisely what you’ve posited, whether individuals have committed breaches of international humanitarian law, war crimes, and so forth. That is the essence of the system. We must see that process obviously reach a conclusion, just as we pay careful attention to any concerns presented to us. Nevertheless, the difficulty of doing so, not only in real time but within this unique context, is substantial. That doesn’t imply we avoid doing it. We do, but it requires time to ascertain the facts.

Lastly, I want to express this. I don’t merely respect, I profoundly appreciate that we have individuals in this department and within our system who hold differing perspectives and vocally express their views. We have an initiative known as the dissent channel in the State Department, where individuals who disagree with a policy we are implementing can send me a note, a memo, a…

comprehensive overview, and I acknowledge it.  I perused it; I react to it.  And I’ve received, I don’t know, a few dozen concerning Gaza, as well as other matters.  That is a valued tradition in this department, and I aimed to ensure that individuals feel empowered to do that.  It has also influenced our thought processes in numerous instances, including our actions.

QUESTION:  I wish to address Ukraine, as in the battle for democracy, in the struggle for – as you and President Biden have been discussing, particularly as you approach the conclusion of the administration, that these represent the significant achievements of your administration, that you united this substantial coalition.  You enlarged NATO.  You aided Ukraine’s survival.  As you are aware, even within the U.S. landscape, certain experts believe that you didn’t go far enough, that you didn’t supply enough weaponry; it was only sufficient to survive but not enough to claim victory or even enough to bring Putin properly to the negotiating table.

I am uncertain if you will respond to that, but I want to inquire about what you just articulated with Secretary of Defense Austin, where you enumerated your accomplishments and subsequently mentioned that this is leverage we can hand over to Donald Trump and his administration, and if he doesn’t utilize it and merely capitulates, that would be disastrous for all parties involved.  Do you believe that leverage will be employed by the next administration?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Naturally, I cannot comment on what the next administration will do.  I do understand that President Trump often asserts that he seeks and secures favorable agreements, so one of the objectives we’ve strived for is to ensure that Ukraine has, but also the United States possesses, the strongest possible position to negotiate in pursuing a resolution, to seek a ceasefire.  And that essentially hinges on two factors.  It hinges on whether that’s what the Ukrainians aspire to, and it also relies on whether Putin will choose to engage in that kind of process.  So we’ll see; the verdict is still out on that.

However, Christiane, what I can reveal to you is this.  Recall where our journey started.  Putin, who endeavored to erase Ukraine from existence, to obliterate Ukraine as an independent nation, to assimilate it into Russia – this was an imperial ambition.  That ambition has faltered, and it has failed due to, of course, the bravery of the Ukrainian populace, but it has also failed because we united and maintained a coalition of over 50 nations in support of Ukraine’s defense.  At every stage, we were resolute in ensuring that Ukraine had what it required to defend itself.  As the dynamics of the battlefield transformed, we adapted as well concerning what we provided them.

At each juncture, we not only had to assess whether a specific weapon system was within our capacity to supply, but whether they could effectively utilize it?  Did they have the requisite training?  Could they maintain it?  Was it aligned with a coherent operational strategy?  All of these elements factored into every decision made.  Yet the reality is Ukraine remains resilient, and that outcome was not anticipated when Putin initiated this invasion.  It stands.  It also possesses an exceptionally promising future as an independent entity, increasingly integrated with institutions in Europe and the transatlantic community, capable of self-defense militarily, economically, and democratically.  That serves as the ultimate counterargument to Vladimir Putin.

QUESTION:  And you are aware that Putin harbors no interest, no overt interest in anything other than total submission and the complete destruction of Ukraine as an independent, sovereign entity?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Exactly.

QUESTION:  A subordinate state.  What would the implications of that be on – though we know the fate that awaits Ukraine, but what about Europe, American leadership?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I believe two aspects are crucial to consider.  Firstly, if a ceasefire is to occur, it’s vital that it incorporates some form of deterrent to ensure that Russia does not strike again, because we understand Putin’s intentions.  In the event of a ceasefire, Putin will likely attempt to exploit that time to recuperate, to rearm, and to launch another attack.  Hence, a robust deterrent must be established to prevent that scenario.  There are various methods to accomplish that, but it will be crucial.

More broadly, you touch upon what this has always represented.  Certainly, it’s about Ukraine, it’s about the Ukrainian society, but it encompasses something much broader.  It pertains to the reality that Russia waged aggression against the fundamental principles that underpin the international order, essential for maintaining peace, ensuring stability, and averting conflict; the idea that one cannot simply infringe upon another nation’s borders through force, that one cannot merely invade and attempt to dominate another country and dictate its future.  We recognize that, had we not defended those principles, had Putin been permitted to contravene them without consequence, the message sent to potential aggressors worldwide – far beyond Europe – would have been unequivocal.

One of the most impactful moments occurred early on, when then-Japanese Prime Minister Kishida strongly affirmed Japan’s support for Ukraine and remarked:  What transpires in Ukraine today could occur in East Asia tomorrow.  That’s why this issue transcends Ukraine, and why it remains imperative that we continue not only to protect Ukraine but to uphold those principles.

QUESTION:  Do you believe in the dimming light of this administration, after all that you’ve accomplished, that you wish you had taken further actions?  For instance, the former Russian foreign minister conveyed to me, in the aftermath of the invasion:  All Putin comprehends is strength.  The former French president, understated, François Hollande, informed me that the West fears conflict; Putin does not fear conflict; that’s what grants Putin his upper hand.  We know that the U.S. government has been intimidated by the saber-rattling, the nuclear saber-rattling.  Do you seriously think that he would have acted upon that, and should you have challenged his bluff as a formidable U.S. and NATO force?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, I’ll take – I’ll contest one segment of your inquiry regarding the assertion that we’ve been intimidated.  We certainly haven’t been.  Look at what we have been able to accomplish, not only on our own but also with numerous other nations that we have rallied and maintained together, in terms of our support for Ukraine – and the Ukrainians have been determined themselves to continue this fight – which has amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars in military assistance, as well as additional humanitarian and economic aid for Ukraine.

And the losses that Russia has endured on the battlefield in a war of attrition of Putin’s making, estimated to be around 700,000 to 800,000 casualties.  This encompasses both fatalities and injuries.  This surpasses the comprehension of most people.  Thus, undoubtedly Ukrainians, with our backing, have vigorously confronted Russia.

President Biden bears a responsibility that none of us ultimately share.  The responsibility lies squarely with the President.  It’s to ensure, on one hand, that we extend all possible support to Ukraine so it can effectively safeguard itself, while also, yes, avoiding direct confrontation with a nuclear power.  I believe he has successfully navigated both aspects exceptionally well.  Moreover, we now possess a NATO Alliance that is stronger, larger, and better equipped than it has ever been.  That represents the best deterrent to avert further aggression from Putin.  He does not wish to confront NATO, and we have witnessed that repeatedly.

QUESTION:

Do you believe that Marco Rubio and his associates, who have raised concerns about backing Ukraine and have hindered timely assistance to the nation, as well as questioned alliances – certainly the initial Trump administration was not one that honored alliances like yours has done. Do you think they will uphold this alliance that you have reconstructed, or do you think that is going to – I understand you can’t predict the future, but what do you – what are your fears? What’s your concern?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, undoubtedly, my apprehension is that there might be a shift away from what I consider a significant accomplishment of this administration, which has been to re-energize, reinvigorate, and even re-conceptualize our partnerships and alliances, because we firmly believe that we’re stronger and more effective when collaborating with others. And I think most Americans prefer not to see America acting independently; they recognize we’re in a better position when we can collaborate with – other nations, and that’s been a hallmark of this administration.

The fact that we accomplished that is what allowed us to unite so many nations in defense of Ukraine, ensuring that the burden was shared, not solely shouldered by the United States. The investment we made in allies and partners is why we’re now able to focus everyone similarly on the challenges posed by China, allowing us to collectively confront those challenges, which magnifies our impact compared to if we were acting alone.

Now, they could potentially move away from that. I’ve had fruitful discussions with Senator Rubio, soon to be Secretary Rubio, and he is someone who is well-versed in these matters, having long served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee. He understands the complexities involved and approaches them thoughtfully. However, I don’t want to speak on his behalf or overly praise him; I believe he recognizes the necessity of American involvement and leadership.

QUESTION: What do you believe would be the ramifications if President Trump were to emulate Putin, so to speak, and annex Greenland or invade Canada or Mexico or something similar?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  This – this is not going to occur.  And so – of course, it’s not a sound idea to begin with, but there’s little value in actually deliberating on it since it won’t happen.  We have a robust relationship, of course, with Denmark, which is a NATO Ally.  I visited Greenland myself not long after taking office.  We maintain a military base there that is vital.  Our economic ties are significant and can be further strengthened.  That would be advantageous, but not by pursuing the scenario you just mentioned.

QUESTION: And lastly, regarding Iran, there is much to discuss, but I want to inquire if the public display of Iran’s attempt to attack Israel and its total failure will accelerate Iran’s aspirations – as of now, they lack a nuclear weapon, and they are not developing one, according to the UN – do you foresee that becoming a concern in the coming years, prompting them to feel the need to pursue that?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, we’ve observed two key aspects from this situation.  One is the nuclear issue.  We had successfully contained Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the Iran nuclear agreement –

QUESTION:  And let’s not forget, Trump withdrew from it.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I view that as a significant error, particularly because of the lack of a follow-up strategy.  Since that withdrawal, Iran has reached a point where it would now take them over a year to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon; that was the outcome of the Iran nuclear deal.  Presently, however, that so-called breakout time has reduced to a week or two, providing enough material for a weapon – they don’t yet possess a weapon itself, but the fissile material can be rapidly produced.

Thus, Iran must now assess whether, due to the loss of its proxies – Hamas, Hizballah, and their connections in Syria – it concludes that it needs to pursue this path for self-defense.  Conversely, they might deduce that it would be wiser to negotiate a deal.  If President Trump is sincere about his earlier statements regarding wanting a better or stronger deal, an opportunity may arise.

Moreover, Christiane, there’s something else that’s crucial here.  What has transpired with Iran also illustrates the potential trajectory for the region, Israel, and the Palestinians if they follow the path we’ve laid out for enhanced integration.  Israel’s enduring hope has been to be treated as any other nation in the region, establishing normal relations with its neighbors.  We now have a chance for them to achieve that.

Prior to October 7th, we were diligently pursuing the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, building upon the Abraham Accords. I was scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia and Israel to engage in resolving some of the outstanding issues, particularly concerning a pathway to a Palestinian state, which is critical for both the Saudis and for us in moving forward with normalization.

We have recognized the advantages of integration for Israel’s security.  When Israel faced an unprecedented attack from Iran on two occasions, we managed to assemble a coalition of nations, including regional countries, to support Israel.  Israel understands that being part of a regional security arrangement, which comes with integration and normalized relations, enhances its security.  However, achieving this historic normalization requires two essential steps: concluding the conflict in Gaza and agreeing upon a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.  We have made significant progress on all of these fronts.  The normalization agreements are ready to be implemented.  Proposals for establishing a credible pathway to a Palestinian state are also prepared and available.  I discussed some of them just this week.

I believe we are passing on to the next administration the potential to advance along this pathway, a path that they made significant progress on with the Abraham Accords.  Achieving integration and fostering a region focused on collaboration can create increased opportunities for individuals in all nations, tackling terrorism, addressing threats from countries like Iran that seek to destabilize order, while also addressing the situation in Gaza and a pathway for the Palestinians.  These are the two pivotal elements.

My aspiration, my greatest hope is that the next administration can move forward with all these initiatives and projects.  This could dramatically transform the region’s future.

QUESTION:  Secretary Blinken, thank you very much.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks, Christiane.  It was a pleasure to be with you.