Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview With Former Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Mike Mullen; Narges Mohammadi's Appeal To Donald Trump; Interview With Investigative Journalist And "How To Survive The Broligarchy" Substack Author Carole Cadwalladr. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired June 20, 2025 - 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)

MIKE MULLEN, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: There's risk associated with every single action or inaction that the leadership in the

United States and Israel takes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The United States on the edge of war with Iran. I ask former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen what are the calculations

and the end game.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARGES MOHAMMADI, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE: Tehran is not a city where you can prevent the killing of people who have nowhere to shelter with one

evacuation order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- a call from peace from Iran Nobel Laureate Narges Mohammadi.

Plus --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It was at this precise moment, in this room, 21 years ago that I developed the first inklings of political awareness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- a time when a different future seemed possible, my deeply personal reporting trip back to the home I grew up in Iran.

Also, ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAROLE CADWALLADR, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, "HOW TO SURVIVE THE BROLIGARCHY" SUBSTACK: These are men who own global communication

platforms, and those global communication platforms are now allied to the U.S. government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr tells Hari why she's coined the term, the oligarchy and how to survive it.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Israel's attacks on Iran and Iran's retaliation have brought the United

States to the edge of entering another war in the Middle East. The White House now says President Trump will make a decision in two weeks saying

there is still time for Iran to come to a deal. And it's exposing divisions within President Trump's cabinet and the MAGA movement over American

involvement abroad.

Trump, after all, ran his election campaign on an isolationist foreign policy, more or less. Iran for its part, has made clear that it would not

back down if the U.S. joins Israel as the country's deputy foreign minister told me this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, IRANIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER: If the Americans decide to get involved militarily, we have no choice but to retaliate

wherever we find the targets necessary to be acted upon. So, that is clear and simple. Because we are acting in self-defense. If, you know, another

country joins the fight. So, that is another instance for our self-defense. You do not expect Iran to be -- to not use its right of self-defense based

on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, the deputy foreign minister, Ravanchi, also told me that they had fully assumed that they were continuing the negotiations as

planned for June 15th. That was last week. Two days earlier, Israel started the war.

Now, whatever the U.S. decides, a key question remains, does it share the same goals as Israel? Prime Minister Netanyahu's government says its

objective is to remove the Iran nuclear program.

But talk of regime change has been growing, whether Iranians are likely or able to come out and protest at all is uncertain because much like in Gaza,

Israel has ordered civilians to evacuate their homes under a hail of airstrikes and bombardments.

As former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has an insider's view of war in the Middle East, and he's joining us from

California. Admiral Mullen, welcome to the program.

MIKE MULLEN, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Thank you, Christiane. Good to be with you.

AMANPOUR: And you too. And I remember when you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, you know, I was reporting on the Middle East, there were

several discussions and interviews we had about precisely this issue, what was going to happen with Iran and would Iran become like what the Americans

did in Iraq?

In other words, go after Saddam Hussein over, in that case, non-existent WMD program, and in this case, no evidence that any move has been made

towards militarizing their nuclear -- you know, their nuclear capability. So, Admiral Mullen, just give me your take on what's happening and how we

got here.

MULLEN: I think a real inflection point, Christiane, was October 7th. And one of the things I felt in the -- as a result of that was we really needed

to address the issue of Iran. We've had -- we've been engaged or not engaged, certainly threatened by Iran in the Middle East for 45 years. And

I really didn't have a specific set of options to do that, but I think they needed to be pressed because we just can't do this for another several

decades.

And, you know, lacking some change there, it looked like it would continue. So, I'm -- in one way, I'm not surprised we're here. Certainly, it seems to

me that with the way Israel has moved on Gaza, on Hezbollah, the Houthis, et cetera, and by all reports, Iran itself is greatly diminished in terms

of its military capability and its military leadership as a result of these recent strikes.

[13:05:00]

They are as weak as they've been since 1979, I think, and very, very vulnerable. So, I expect -- and I don't know, but I expect Prime Minister

Netanyahu saw the opportunity and is obviously trying to take advantage of it. What I worry about, which is something we've all worried about, which

is a wider war in the Middle East. And I think that President Trump has it within his grasp to one -- and probably the only person who can somehow

contain Israel before that kind of war breaks out.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, what is a wider war as the president mulls joining? What is a wider war that you think the president should try to preempt and make

it not happen?

MULLEN: Well, I think it's a war that, as you've now heard, because of the recent strikes, the supreme leader has talked about hitting American

targets. And we have bases throughout the Middle East certainly well within range of the Iranian missile forces. That would be a big step in that

direction.

If somehow as a result of that, you brought in forces or the other countries in the Middle East, whether it be the UAE or Saudi Arabia or

other countries in that region, that's how it spreads. And then it gets -- it just becomes incredibly difficult to figure out how it's going to stop,

how the escalation stops, which is what the worry is if we got into something like that.

AMANPOUR: Admiral Mullen, you are aware, and I don't know whether you have, you know, more insight or more, you know, contacts, you obviously do, but

the public conversation anyway inside the United States is about using one piece of weaponry, and that is the so-called MOP, the massive ordinance,

penetrator, I think it's called, using American bombers, the B-2 to deliver it and specifically to target Fordow, the Iranian nuclear site, which is

buried deep under a mountain there or in a mountain side. Tell me about what you think an American action would look like if it joined.

MULLEN: Well, one of the things that historically is instructive for me is that when we've taken action in the past, Christiane, to degrade or even

try to destroy and eliminate the various nuclear facilities, it's amazed me how quickly Iran has reconstructed and recovered from those attacks. In a

couple cases, pretty devastating attacks.

And so, the prospect of elimination is one I've always been somewhat concerned about whether we could do that. I think it's widely reported that

Fordow, which is their second enrichment facility, is buried exceptionally deep. There's been, I think, too much certainty in the public discussion

that this 30,000-pound bomb could actually eliminate Fordow. It is very, very deeply buried, you know, tens of meters, if not hundreds of meters.

So, I'm not even sure that if we use that it would destroy it. It certainly would -- could possibly -- very possibly damage it. But the idea of

eliminating it and destroying it to a point where it would not be rebuilt, I don't think that's in the cards. That said, if we hit them and the

Iranian leadership says that's enough, that's another step.

And I think we are very much, you know, on the of taking that kind of action. When you listen to President Trump, and you certainly listen to the

leadership, particularly even the leadership in Israel, the defense minister, talking about decapitating Khamenei, that this is all I think,

you know, very strong indicators we are very close to a wider war breaking out.

AMANPOUR: You know, you mentioned the extent of damage that could be done. I spoke to the former Israeli prime minister. He was also a former defense

minister and head of the Israeli military, Ehud Barak. This was just, you know, earlier this week, and he told me, and honestly, my jaw dropped, that

he didn't believe Israel could damage Fordow or the whole nuclear program by more than several weeks or even a month or so setback.

[13:10:00]

And even with the U.S., as you've just laid out, it might not be possible to damage it in a significant enough way. And you've laid out the precedent

of Iran rebuilding stuff that gets damaged. So, what is the consequence, do you think, and the point therefore of the U.S. joining if it -- if the

outcome is not certain? Even -- you know, they have air superiority or supremacy.

MULLEN: No, I understand that. I don't think -- and in war oftentimes the outcome is not certain. And I think it's going to remain that way,

particularly with this particular target set and with the leadership. I mean, what I've seen happen in obviously so far is a determination to

defend themselves and respond from Iran.

And I agree with, you know, former -- with

AMANPOUR: Ehud Barak.

MULLEN: -- former Prime Minister Barak that it is not certain. I think there's an open question as to how long it would take to -- for them to

reconstitute. And the debate right now is they are weeks or months away. Certainly not -- I think they are probably two or three years away from a

sophisticated weapon.

But to have, you know, a rough shot weapon that they could transport in somehow is possible I think within months. That's always been a key issue.

It's not just having the uranium is, how do you weaponize that? But it could be done, you know, relatively quickly. And I think that's what we're

dealing with.

So, how do you have enough impact either through diplomacy or through, you know, targeting them with these weapons to convince Iran to give up their

nuclear capability? And I think that's the essence. I don't think we know the answer to that. That's the risk that is inherent in trying to figure

out what the right course of action here is.

AMANPOUR: OK.

MULLEN: And what the Iranian leadership will do.

AMANPOUR: So, the question then is, is the risk worth the benefit or does it outweigh the benefit? And yes, if you were in the room, which you have

been in the past when you were chairman, what would you be advising the president about this? What options would you be telling him or advising

him?

MULLEN: Well, I think a lot of them have been very specifically discussed either -- you know, even publicly. And certainly, as the president has laid

out in the last two days, I think about, or maybe it was yesterday, the ultimate ultimatum, you know, I'd be -- obviously, I think that means that

-- to me, that the United States is certainly prepared to act whether he will make that final decision or not, you know, I'm not sure. I'm sure

they've laid out the options. You saw last week or maybe earlier this week, the United States started to move people out of the Middle East, all of

that, you know, that's all-precursor work through, you know, a possible attack and expansion.

I think the other thing is being on the outside, I don't have the intelligence. And so, you know, I don't have specific enough information to

be able to say, this is the recommendation I would make one way or the other.

AMANPOUR: OK.

MULLEN: But I think the options are fairly limited in terms of how to address this, whether we can get Iran back to the table to the point where

they will be willing to eliminate their nuclear capability or whether we and Israel try to take it out.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you this? You know, Benjamin Netanyahu has actually been trying to do this for decades, way before October 7th. Way before. And

successive American presidents have basically said no. And not only that, they have not sold or given or whatever they do the -- you know, this big

MOP bomb or the B-2 to Israel, precisely because they didn't want them to do this.

But now, reporting suggests that Israel is actually kind of calling the shots, reporting from inside Israel, reporting from, you know, journalists

outside Israel that President Trump is sort of being pulled along by Israel to an extent, and that as -- it's clear that he is the first president to

have allowed Israel to actually anyway take any action against the nuclear program in Iran.

Do you -- are you concerned that this foreign policy is being led by a foreign country and not by the United States and dragging the United States

in?

[13:15:00]

MULLEN: Well, Israel obviously has -- you know, has a level of independence with its leadership that can make these decisions and move. I do think that

the United States in -- and particularly President Trump, has the wherewithal to constrain him. I think the question is, you know, will he,

from now on. I have no idea about who knew what before Israel initiated this most recent set of attacks on Iran.

And one of the areas that is instructive to me, Christiane, is, you know, back in my time, when there were certainly threats that Israel would do

this in Netanyahu was there as well, the armed forces in Israel were not overly supportive at that particular time. And it's very clear to me now

that they are, and this, again, I think is post-October 7th. This is an opportunity, this is -- they've got to reestablish the security of their

nation for their people. And in that regard, I think the IDF and the political leadership are on the same page.

So, I think that's the challenge that the United States has. And certainly, thread -- it appears to me threading the needle, which means can we support

them? Can we call them off at the right moment? And can we do this without this breaking into a wider war that would more deeply involve the Middle

East?

I mean, listening to President Trump for some time right now, he -- it's very clear he is not going to get into a deep long forever war in the

Middle East, I don't even think for this. So, how do you thread that needle? And that's the challenge that's there. And there's risk associated

with every single action or inaction that the leadership in the United States and Israel takes.

AMANPOUR: Former Chairman of the Joints Chief Admiral Mullen, thank you so much indeed for joining us.

MULLEN: Thanks, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And stay with us because we'll be right back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, amid this intense conflict and seemingly distant diplomacy, it might be easy to forget that it was President Trump himself who walked

away from the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA in 2018. That was President Obama's landmark negotiation. It was meant to curb Iran's nuclear

ambitions.

[13:20:00]

After that deal was struck 10 years ago, I spoke to Iran's then-Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, about what it took to reach an agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Zarif, welcome. Thank you.

JAVAD ZARIF, THEN-IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you. Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Did you make history today?

ZARIF: Well, I hope so. History is made by good decisions that are implemented. I think we adopted a good decision. I think it's good for all.

It's now time to implement it. But more importantly than that, if you want to make history today, this has to be the foundation of the city, for

building on something that can in fact break a several-year-old misperception, unnecessary crisis. So, that we can deal with the real

crises that are affecting all of us.

AMANPOUR: Iran has always called the United States the great Satan. And now you're making a deal with the United States, the great Satan. Some are

already saying that it's a surrender. How will you sell it back home?

ZARIF: Well, we, first of all, have an agreement with P5 plus 1 or E3 plus 3, as the Europeans like to call it. It's not with the United States. But

the United States is an important part of this -- was an important part of this process. And it is, in our view, a good agreement. Any agreement

includes compromise. We have, in fact, accepted some limitations and in reciprocation of -- for our acceptance of those limitations, we receive

quite a lot of benefit. Neither side was prepared to provide the flexibility that has now led us to this agreement.

If you look at the fact that now Iran has a nuclear program, an enrichment program, a heavy water reactor, an R&D program, it completes nuclear --

peaceful, because it was always peaceful -- nuclear program. That two years ago people thought would never be accepted by any of the major powers.

Now, I'm happy that these people have come to the conclusion that the old way didn't work, that imposition, coercion for eight years on this issue,

30-some years on other issues, has produced nothing. And two years of diplomacy has produced an agreement of peace.

AMANPOUR: What do you say to those who will take precisely what you've just told me about all that you've gained under this agreement and they'll say,

well, you know what, it's only 10 years and then they can do whatever they want. Sure, they'll go for this agreement.

ZARIF: Well, the fact is that if people were worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions, those ambitions were always peaceful. So, last year it was

peaceful, 10 years ago it was peaceful, 10 years from now it will be peaceful. They shouldn't worry about that.

Iran's interest in maintaining a nuclear weapons-free region is paramount. We believe that nuclear weapons do not augment our security and that is a

very serious, sober political analysis but founded in our religious beliefs. Don't forget that we were the victims of chemical weapons during

the Iran-Iraq War and we had the capability to use them, but we never did. These are principles, fundamental principles on which we operate.

So, if they want to close four pathways to a bomb or 40 pathways to a bomb, they can close them all because we do not want the pathway to the bomb.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Meantime, there are talks taking place in Europe today between European leaders and Iranians under the auspices also in consultation with

the United States to see if there's any last-ditch ability to avert a full- scale war and to get Iran to move towards limiting its nuclear ambition.

For so many people in Iran, life right now is dominated by fear of Israeli strikes. A group of inmates in Iran's Evin prison are petitioning for the

release of non-violent ones during wartime. In a letter to Iran's judiciary detainees like Reza Khandan, who is the husband of prominent Iranian human

rights lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh says, quote, "Evin Prison and many prisons across the country lack facilities to protect prisoners' lives against

missile attacks, drone strikes, and Israeli fighter jet bombardments."

Meantime, the Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate, Narges Mohammadi, who has spent much of the past two decades inside Evin is appealing to Donald Trump, who

himself wants a Nobel Peace Prize, to stop the war. And she sent us this exclusive video from her shelter in Iran.

[13:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NARGES MOHAMMADI, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE (through translator): The issue here is that a war is raging in which many innocent people, civilians

are being killed. Residential homes, infrastructure and critical facilities of the people in these cities and countries are being bombed and destroyed.

And this is a very concerning issue. Especially in the country of Iran, where we are witness to -- in the days that I was in Tehran -- we didn't

even have a shelter to go to. Even at night when we wanted to go to the metro station the doors of the metros were closed. Therefore, people have

been abandoned in the city, without shelter, faced with bombardment.

The economic situation of the Iranian people is seriously concerning. Tehran is not a city where you can prevent the killing of people who have

nowhere to shelter with one evacuation order Tehran means the 10 million human beings who live in it, they have jobs they study. And when they

announce that part of Tehran needs to evacuate, and when they announce it in the middle of the night and one hour later the city is bombed, that

means these people even economically do not have the possibility to move.

These people don't even have internet. They can't even get gas for their cars to hit the road. They don't have this possibility. Therefore, people

in the face of bombardment, say they have been abandoned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: There've been several key junctures in the past decades when the people of Iran were hopeful for real change. I saw this myself close and

very personal when I returned to report from Iran after the election of a reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. That's nearly 30 years ago now.

As today, we see the exit roads of Tehran blocked with people fleeing, it's jarring to see how much people, including my own family members there

wanted a different future and thought one was possible.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Everywhere I go in Tehran, I'm an object of curiosity for these young people. They're eager to ask questions and to

tell me all about their freedom fight, and I am stunned by the symmetry.

Just a generation ago, there was another youth movement, the one that sparked a revolution forcing the Shah of Iran out and bringing the

ayatollah, Khamenei, in.

A generation after the revolution, these students are telling me that they want everything, real democracy, the right to have fun and even friendly

relations with the United States.

AMANPOUR: For me, the young people's struggle is especially personal because I was their age when the revolution happened. But back in 1979, I

was living a carefree life, taking all the personal freedoms for granted. When I was a girl growing up in Tehran, this was my house.

This used to be the back way we came in, and it's now a chicken coop. This was the backyard.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): The revolutionary Courts of Iran took custody of our house after my family left the country in 1980. Only recently we were able

to reclaim it.

AMANPOUR: So, we have a family in here who is caretaking the place so that it doesn't get expropriate, so that people don't think it's empty.

You know, it was a very beautiful house, not grand, but beautifully decorated. You can't tell that at all now. Everything now is just a shell,

really, just all crumbling.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): After the revolution, our house was used to shelter Iranian families, refugees who were fleeing the Iran-Iraq War.

AMANPOUR: This used to be our living room. This room for me is kind of significant because it was here 21 years ago that my father was sitting in

that corner and I was standing here, and all of a sudden he said, you know, life as we used to know it is going to come to an end because the

revolution is going to happen and it's just going to be completely different.

And it was at this precise moment in this room 21 years ago that I developed the first inklings of political awareness, and this is where my

life changed.

This was a little outdoor patio where we would have parties at night. My parents would give dinner parties and there would be lights hung and there

were a lot of trees that had been cut down for I don't what reason, but lights were hung in the trees, and it was very beautiful.

[13:30:00]

And this was my room. It's clearly now a woodshed.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): It is sad remembering what it used to be like, sad for me and for my family. My cousin, Sury (ph).

AMANPOUR: We can take it off when we're behind the wall. Yes.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): And my father.

AMANPOUR: Hey. Hi, daddy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello.

AMANPOUR: Hi, daddy. How are you? Oh, ducking underneath the laundry. Nice, huh?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice to see you.

AMANPOUR: We've been touring the house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Taking pictures and showing every -- it is not a house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not a house.

AMANPOUR: What is it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a ruin.

AMANPOUR: It's a ruin. It is a ruin.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): My father is 85 years old. He and my mother live in London now, but he comes back to Iran several times a year. My cousin Sury

(ph) and the rest of my family live in Tehran.

AMANPOUR: Daddy, do you remember 20 years ago, the summer of 1978, telling me that it was all going to change, our life was going to change? Do you

remember that we were sitting in the lounge, in the living room. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I knew that something will happen? Yes.

AMANPOUR: Can you remember what you were feeling then?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was only about the family, what they will become. Are we going to stay here, going abroad? I was perplexed.

AMANPOUR: What do you think would've happened to me if I stayed here? I mean, I went to university abroad. I wanted to be a journalist. What

would've happened to me if I stayed, daddy?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't say that. We wouldn't be at the same level as you are now, because you didn't have -- you wouldn't have the free field of

activity due to your gender, being a woman.

SURY (PH): As a woman, we are not really equal with men now. And that was not what I wanted at the first of the revolution.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): My cousin Sury (ph) supported the Ayatollah Khamenei. On television, it looked like his revolution was only popular

among the young religious radicals, like the students who took the American hostages. So, many, but in fact, discontent with the Shah's repressive

regime ran deep. The massive traditional religious class resented his efforts to modernize Iran. They saw the Shah as America's puppet.

And many in the middle-class, people like my cousin Sury (ph), wanted democracy rather than the Shah's monarchy.

When the revolution happened, my cousin was a television journalist just like I am now. She thought Khamenei would bring greater freedom, but

instead, the ayatollah who had preached equality for women, ordered them to cover themselves from head to foot in the all-enveloping cloak called the

chador.

SURY (PH): and I was against that. That's why I lost my job.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Sury (ph) was fired for defying the new Islamic order, by refusing to wear the chador or the headscarf known as the hijab.

21 years ago, women demonstrated against the hijab and ABC News was there. Out of the crowd, they found my cousin, Sury (ph).

SURY (PH): I was with Ayatollah Khamenei and I always said that our leader is Ayatollah Khamenei, but not now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not?

SURY (PH): Because he's against the woman.

You know, at first, I was against the hijab, but now I think it's not chador and scarf who limits us, it's all law about women.

AMANPOUR: Laws.

SURY (PH): Laws, yes. Which limits. You know, we have many, many educated women, very intelligent women, very capable women. But in law, we are not

equal with men. And that's the main hijab for us.

AMANPOUR: That's the main restriction.

SURY (PH): Yes. Not the scarf.

AMANPOUR: So, do you think that the young women of today, the people of your daughter's generation, do you think that they are struggling for equal

rights?

SURY (PH): Yes, of course.

AMANPOUR: And do you think it'll work?

[13:35:00]

SURY (PH): And I hope they will win. I hope so, because I have two daughters.

AMANPOUR: 21 years ago, when the revolution happened, I was about 21 years old. And I had no idea what was going on. I was completely politically

ignorant, had no interest, no idea.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): I often wonder now why I was so unaware. But then I had a sheltered childhood and the Tehran I grew up in looked much like an

American city. The revolution caught me by surprise because the culture and the lifestyle I knew were largely Western. What's strange is that behind

closed doors, life in Iran looks much the same as it did when I was a child.

This is my father's 85th birthday party. It is strictly a family gathering. Everyone here is related. So, it's OK for us to uncover ourselves and

celebrate like this.

SURY (PH): Yes, you are free at your home. You can do what you want to do at your home.

AMANPOUR: So, is that what it's about now? Do you take your personal freedoms inside your house?

SURY (PH): Yes.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Last summer, the people began to openly challenge authority, and now it's a constant game of cat and mouse.

SURY (PH): This country is very strange. For example, you can express yourself, you can write articles in the newspapers now, but at -- as well,

they are free to arrest you. You know, everybody has their own freedom. You can ride, they can arrest you. It's strange now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR (on camera): 25 years later and those freedoms are still being fought over. We'll be right back after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, our next guest says, Americans are living in a surveillance state, and she is sounding the alarm about the dangers of techno

authoritarianism. British author and award-winning investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr calls it the broligarchy. And it's the title of her

ongoing Substack series. She's joining Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the Trump administration's decision to use the data analytics company, Palantir

Technologies.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Carole Cadwalladr, thanks so much for joining us. Most of our audience

might remember that you are a Pulitzer Award-winning journalist who worked at The Guardian for decades, and now, you've launched a Substack which is

called "How to Survive the Broligarchy."

In your column, you write, the opaque and unaccountable Silicon Valley companies that facilitated both Brexit and Trump are now key players in an

accelerating global access of autocracy. I believe this is a new form and type of power that I'm committed to keep on exposing. So, what is the

broligarchy?

[13:40:00]

CAROLE CADWALLADR, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, "HOW TO SURVIVE THE BROLIGARCHY" SUBSTACK: It's the idea that we have this new class of

oligarchs who've come out of Silicon Valley. And as we know, they're tech bros. So, it's the idea of a tech bro oligarchy and an oligarchy, you know,

we know it in the Russian sense, in that it's a group of businessmen who are able to make vast fortunes as long as they support Putin.

As long as they support -- they don't dissent from the -- you know, the aims of the Russian government. And we can see that exact same relationship

now in the USA in that the tech companies very clearly are supporting and standing behind Trump, literally at the inauguration. And they are tech

bros, hence tech bro broligarchy.

SREENIVASAN: Yes.

CADWALLADR: And the reason I say it's a kind of power that the world has never seen before is that these aren't just vast corporates making, you

know, some type of machines or cars or whatever. These are men who own global communication platforms, and those global communication platforms

are now allied to the U.S. government, which we can see quite clearly, is acting in an authoritarian way and is making alliances with these

autocracies around the world.

And so, it's a -- for me, it is this very, very dangerous, centralized, far-reaching and extensive type of power at the big level and also at this

-- at the micro level in our own personal lives.

SREENIVASAN: This past April, you did another TED Talk where you compared what's happened in Russia to what's happening now in the United States. You

said, quote, "The Russian and American presidents are now speaking the same words. They're telling the same lies. We are watching the collapse of the

international order in real time. And this is just the start." So, why do you call this a digital coup?

CADWALLADR: I think the thing which really triggered my sense of alarm was the first weekend that Trump came into office and DOGE, that first weekend,

deliberately at the weekend, took access of the U.S. Treasury. So, they gained access to the building and then they gained access to the databases.

And that I felt, you know, it was just such a clue to what is going on, which is, you know, I say this with Silicon Valley, it is always about the

data. Like that is -- it's the crack cocaine. They can't get enough of it. They're addicted to it. They know that is where power and control lies. And

what we have seen DOGE do through this period is get access to all these different government departments. They've got access to all these different

databases.

And now, we know from reporting in The New York Times that Palantir, which is this data analytics company that this guy, Peter Thiel owns, is now

being mandated to use its software to bring all these databases together. And Palantir, by the way, have denied this, but it's this -- you know, as

it was set out in The New York Times reporting, it's this idea of creating a giant database of all American citizens.

That database can also be combined with commercial data, with social media data. And that is -- that's a surveillance state. That's what it is. That's

what China has. And it is clearly used in China to profile, to target, to surveil, and to suppress dissent.

And I think people should be really worried about what this means to them as a country, but also at an individual level.

SREENIVASAN: I can see that one of the justifications for trying to aggregate this data together is that people are going to say, you know

what, you're right. We have so many departments and so many little information silos, and I have these bits of information about whether or

not they're their taxes are filed on time. I have this bit of information on whether or not getting Medicaid, Medicare, et cetera. What's the harm in

putting that stuff together under one roof? Doesn't it make government more efficient?

CADWALLADR: And that's exactly. So, Trump actually signed an executive order. He talked about it was eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse through

getting -- I think, eliminating information silos, he said. And it's exactly that idea.

[13:45:00]

And this is always the language which is used. It's going to make life better. It's going to make it more efficient. It's going to be easier. And

of course, there are some instances when that is true. And if data is collected in an ethical, transparent way, which protects the privacy of the

individual users, that can be the case. But this is not that.

There are no protections in there. There are no ethical guidelines that we can see. None of this is being done with people's consent or even their

knowledge. It's being -- and it's going to be used in opaque and unaccountable ways that could -- I mean, it's not just it could be used to

target critics, it could be used to target protestors. We can already see that people are being literally rounded up off the streets with regards to,

you know, the -- whether they've attended protests or similar. So, there's that.

There's the targeting of people because the -- you know, the government doesn't agree with their views. But it could also be used to deny people

from the services which they're entitled to, to deny them from welfare or from Medicaid, or because it's the idea that a beautiful computer is going

to be all knowing and all seeing, and is going to be able to make these decisions without any human intervention.

SREENIVASAN: We should point out that 10 Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Palantir on Monday asking that the tech company answer questions about

its expanding federal contracts with the Trump administration and that The New York Times reported recently that Palantir began helping Immigration

and Customs Enforcement officials and removal operations.

So, I wonder, you know, this is not necessarily just a case of ones and zeros attached to my name that this can actually have consequences in our

real 3D world.

CADWALLADR: Exactly, and I think it's worth -- I think that's the thing to remember is that it's the idea -- all of these A.I. they're using this to

train A.I.s which are going to create these algorithms, which are going to be making life and death decisions about, you know, ordinary people with

ordinary problems who are going to have no way of challenging the computer. The computer says no, and that's it.

And I think that like focusing on those real-world consequences is really, really vital. But also realizing that it could easily get things wrong. If

you have the same name as somebody who's on a terrorist watch list and you get targeted because of that, I mean, we know that's already happened to

people after 9/11. So, think of that on steroids. If you've got the same name as somebody who once attended a Palestinian protest rally, these

algorithms are very far from infallible, and we know, if you just -- you use ChatGPT, you know it hallucinates things which aren't even there.

So, the -- it's not an all seeing, all knowledgeable eye. It's a very, very fallible machine that's, as I say, could be making decisions that directly

impact people's lives.

SREENIVASAN: In response to The New York Times reporting, Palantir said, the falsehoods and misleading statements documented in relation to The

Times article appear to fall well below such standards. And even raised questions about the author's adherence to The Times guidelines on

integrity.

On their company blog, Palantir said they act as a data processor, not a data controller. I wonder if these companies are maybe too big to fail, and

when they are in relationships with governments, and governments also have an incentive to make sure that their contractor, for example, doesn't fail.

CADWALLADR: It's a total failure of capitalism on behalf of America. You know, you -- America has been built because it's had strong laws that has

enabled a free market for people to be able to go out and create businesses and create wealth. And that is where, you know, the prosperity has come

from. And now, we've entered an age of monopolies. And monopolies, which have not been broken up.

Although, there are now, there are lawsuits now which are finally coming. And those monopolies prevent innovation. They prevent new technology

companies coming to the market. We all use WhatsApp and Instagram and FaceboOK. which are all owned by Mark Zuckerberg because there's very

little other choice that's -- because they've dominated the market.

But -- so, the absolutely first thing that we have to do, and that is a nonpartisan issue, this is not about left or right or Democrat or

Republican, it's just about enforcing the actual laws that you have and breaking up what are clearly monopolistic companies dominating the market.

[13:50:00]

And that has impacts not just on business, it has impacts on us as citizens, as consumers because there is no incentive to build better, safer

products.

You know, Instagram, we can see there's so many bad effects on teenagers, on mental health. We've had story after story of stuff that they've done,

but there hasn't been a clear competitor because they have, as I say, just dominated the markets and that -- you know, that purchase by Facebook

should clearly never have been part -- allowed to happen in the first place because they just bought a competitor.

SREENIVASAN: OK. So, let's say somebody in the audience agrees with one of your premises that the foundations of a techno authoritarian surveillance

state have been laid. You know, you're still a little optimistic. I mean, what is an average citizen to do if they want to digitally disobey?

CADWALLADR: I think it's really important that there's this famous phrase from Tim Snyder, the historian of authoritarianism. And he says, do not

obey in advance. And it's that idea of that you can see the threat coming and you pre-obey. And I think there's just like even little tiny things,

you know, when it's like, do you accept the cookies? No, you shouldn't accept the cookies, right? That's tracking you. That's surveilling you. You

don't want that. Reject them.

When you are asked, when you are going onto some website, they want your name, they want your e-mail, they want your date of birth, don't give it to

them. That's private information. And it's everything that you do like that where you are just giving away information, that can be used in some way.

It's being contained somewhere. It's being combined with other information. And we all have to just get into the habit of protecting our privacy.

Privacy is power. That's one of the really, really key things to remember. If you want agency over your own life, you need agency also over your

digital life. So, I think that's one of the sort of key points that I try and hammer home.

And you know, I give the example about your kids. You know, children are people too. And if they're not over the age of consent, why would you put

their images onto platforms which are harvesting their data, which we can clearly see are now all allied or aligned with either authoritarian or

hostile governments, you just don't know how that will be used in the future.

And if you care about your kids, and of course you do, you want to protect them, and you also must now think about how you protect them in this online

space. So, I think that that's somewhere in years to come, that social morals are really going to change, and children who are of age now are

going to grow up and ask their parents, why? Why did you do that? So, that's something I think which people can clearly do something about now.

SREENIVASAN: Author and journalist Carole Cadwalladr, thanks so much for joining us.

CADWALLADR: Thanks so much for having me, Hari.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, one of the world's most famous museums was suddenly forced to close its doors earlier this week. The Louvre in Paris

shot after a spontaneous strike by its staff who say they are overwhelmed by all the tourists. Tune in next week for my conversation with author

Elaine Sciolino.

Formally, she was The New York Times Paris Bureau chief, but she's been exploring the iconic museum in ways that you've never before seen, like

joining window washers on the glass pyramid and divulging why so many employees there have a love-hate relationship with the Mona Lisa. It's all

in her new book, "Adventures in the Louvre."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELAINE SCIOLINO, AUTHOR, "ADVENTURES IN THE LOUVRE": I found out that, for example, there was a librarian in charge of all of the letters about the

Mona Lisa and to the Mona Lisa. So, I went through every single letter about. So, it was -- it really was an investigative but also ground on the

ground reporting job.

AMANPOUR: So, we've done the process. Now, we're talking about the art and you bring up the Mona Lisa. So, I didn't know this, but it stands to reason

that 80 percent of first time Louvre visitors go specifically to see the Mona Lisa.

SCIOLINO: Yes.

AMANPOUR: What was your experience covering that? You'd obviously seen it before, but what was your relationship with the Mona Lisa and with the

crowds around the Mona Lisa?

SCIOLINO: Well, I was lucky because I got into the Louvre many times when no one else was there. So, I was able to see the Mona Lisa, just, she and I

bonded. And after a while you can appreciate just why she's so magical.

[13:55:00]

AMANPOUR: Because you didn't appreciate before?

SCIOLINO: No, and I still don't like the fact that she's so important. I mean here, she's a Florentine and she's in this room with Venetian

painting. She doesn't belong there. She really does belong -- have to have her own space.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Much more of Elaine's fascinating adventures in the Louvre next week on our show. But that's it for now. And if you ever bis our program,

you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over

social media.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END