Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with University of Tehran Professor Mohammad Marandi; Interview with Iranian Journalist and Kayhan London Managing Editor Nazenin Ansari; Interview with International Crisis Group Venezuela and Latin America Analyst Phil Gunson; Interview with The New York Times Columnist and "1929" Author Andrew Ross Sorkin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 15, 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.
Will -- Trump still weigh military action against the Iranian regime? Meanwhile, still cut off from the outside world, but harrowing reports of
the regime's killing spree emerge. Mohammad Marandi, professor at Tehran University and longtime defender of the Islamic Republic, joins me.
And what of the opposition? Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah, urges Iranians to keep protesting. I speak to journalist Nazenin Ansari,
supporter of the monarchy.
Then, Machado goes to the White House, but can the Venezuelan opposition leader get Trump's backing?
Plus, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stands firm against what he calls politically motivated criminal investigation. What this unprecedented move means for
America's economy and its democracy.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
He promised help was on the way as Iranian protesters faced the brutal price of their dissent. The number of those killed by the regime is
difficult to verify, but it's believed to be in the thousands. And yet, Donald Trump is holding his fire for now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We've been told that the killing in Iran is stopping. It's stopped. It's stopping. And there's no plan for executions
or an execution or executions. So, I've been told they're in good authority. We'll find out about it. I'm sure if it happens, we'll all be
very upset.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: For their part, American allies in the region, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, are encouraging President Trump not to intervene militarily.
Meanwhile, here's what the Iranian foreign minister told Fox News yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: For 10 days, it was peaceful, legal demonstrations and protests for economic shortcomings. But after that
10 days, for three days, we had a completely different story, a terrorist operation. When terrorist elements led from outside, you know, entered
this, you know, protests, they wanted to increase the number of deaths. Why? Because President Trump has said that if there are killings, he would
intervene. And they wanted to drag him into this conflict. And that was exactly an Israeli plot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that's the position of the regime. So, has this uprising been crushed and what comes next? First, we get the perspective of a fierce
defender. Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University. He's been on this program regularly. He was once an adviser to Iran's nuclear
negotiating team. And he joins us by selective internet access at Iran's Press TV station in Tehran. Mr. Marandi, welcome to the program.
So, let me ask you something. You heard what President Trump said, that he's heard that there are no more killings and that there will be no
executions. So, that is what Foreign Minister Araghchi told Fox News yesterday. Do you think that he told, you know, Trump and the
administration via Fox or otherwise, that in order to head off military intervention?
MOHAMMAD MARANDI, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN: No, he was telling the truth. And I believe your framing is completely inaccurate. And Iran is not
a regime. You do not call Saudi Arabia or the Emirates, which are family states.
AMANPOUR: Anyway, do you know what -- Mr. Marandi --
MARANDI: You don't call them regimes.
AMANPOUR: -- my show, I will use the terminology. I'm just trying to ask you some questions. I understand your position. Has -- have the protests
been crushed?
MARANDI: No, that's another framing that you're using. There were no protests that were crushed on the first two days after the currency
dropped. And it was American manipulation in neighboring countries that brought down the currency 30 to 40 percent. And we had protests on the
streets. And I know you know this. And there were no arrests and no one was harassed.
[13:05:00]
Not like in the U.K., where people who hold plaques against genocide are arrested, or in Germany, where they wear kathias in sympathy to the
Palestinians and they're battered on the streets. There were no arrests.
Then afterwards, two, three days later, there was infiltration by rioters. And many of them were held guns and knives. And there's footage of this. If
anyone looks at my Twitter feed, it's full of these people. They attacked police stations. They killed police officers in police stations. They
murdered 100 police officers and a bit over 300 officers of the law, including volunteers. Yesterday, we had a mass funeral in Tehran for
hundreds of them.
But the narrative in the West is somehow that these are peaceful protests. The Israeli regime put out a Persian tweet, and you know Persian, put out a
Persian tweet or a statement saying that our people are on the ground. The Mossad said that. Pompeo, who was the head of the CIA, said Mossad's on the
ground. Channel 14 of Israel said foreign two days ago. And it's a tweet. They said that weapons were brought in from a foreign government. Guess who
it is. And that's why hundreds of officers in Iran were murdered.
Israelis are saying this, but somehow Western media is all ignoring it because it's disrupting this fake narrative.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MARANDI: But these were just peaceful protesters.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Marandi, you have already said that there was. And so, did the foreign minister. Many days, I think he said 10 days of peaceful
protest. We have reported what you've said. Indeed, we have. We also have footage, as you've seen, that's come in when there's chinks in the internet
blackout. Footage from, let's say, Abadan in Khuzestan Province, which shows Iranian forces firing on protesters.
I do have to say that CNN couldn't verify the exact date, but the video took place in the last few days or last week. As you mentioned, there have
been funerals for 100 security forces at least. But also, we've seen body bags of actual protesters being gathered in various morgues and people
coming to pick them up. Families of protesters.
So, are you denying that your own forces in their crackdown have killed any protesters?
MARANDI: My forces?
AMANPOUR: The Republic, the Republic's forces.
MARANDI: What you are doing is negating the truth. Many of those corpses were police officers. Many of those corpses were people murdered by these
people. A woman in a clinic, they burned down a clinic and a young nurse inside burned to death because of them. Two young men in a mosque, they
were surrounded and they kept throwing Molotov cocktails inside until they died. They shot a three-year-old girl. They shot so many people and they
were shooting the police from the crowd.
There's a lot of footage of this and you can see it because I posted some of them online and saw many other people.
AMANPOUR: We've seen some of that.
MARANDI: But this doesn't fit with the Western narrative.
AMANPOUR: No, no. It's not about fitting with the narrative. I need to ask you whether you admit after all the bloodshed, all the testimony that we've
had from people who've left Iran, all the doctors' testimony, which I'll play in a moment, do you admit that many protesters were killed?
MARANDI: No, don't say admit, Christiane. I'm truthful and CNN is not truthful.
AMANPOUR: Oh, don't say that now.
MARANDI: CNN is the side that supported the genocide in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Oh, don't say that now.
MARANDI: Don't frame it like that.
AMANPOUR: Don't say that now.
MARANDI: CNN supports genocide.
AMANPOUR: Please do not say that.
MARANDI: Don't question -- don't frame the question that way.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me tell you then -- no, no. OK. So, tell me. Do you agree -- go ahead.
MARANDI: The rioters and the police were shooting at each other and people, innocent people in the middle were also hit. And some of those
people who were hit in the middle and murdered and killed, they were killed in the crossfire and some of them were killed intentionally by the rioters.
I spoke to a physician who I know who operated on a few people. He said most of the injuries that he dealt with were shot with pistols from very
close by. And he was saying that they were probably from within the crowd itself.
And why did they want to do this? It's exactly as the Iranian foreign minister said. Who needs this war? The Israeli regime. This whole process
of the currency manipulation and then the riots, and then suddenly you have this consensus of the United States and the West to help the Iranian
people.
If you want to help the Iranian people, end the sanctions. Stop strangling people in Iran, Cuba and Venezuela and elsewhere. If you want to help the
Iranian, don't help the Israelis. Bomb the country and bomb Gazan. Bomb Iran. That is how you help the Iranian people.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Let me play to you a doctor from an emergency hospital about that night, January the 8th. And as you have said, and as your foreign
minister have said, between January the 8th and 10th or 11th, there was a lot of violence on the streets. This is what the doctor says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Everything fell apart. At 8:00 p.m., the internet was cut. At 8:20, I got a call from the hospital.
Doctor, come, you must come. When I arrived, I saw what we call a mass casualty situation. Every single one of the four operating rooms was full.
I was there from 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. until the morning. I don't know how many surgeries I did, maybe 10 or 11.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And as you know, doctors and other health officials have said that there was, you know, real stress on the health services. And even
state television reported that, I mean, they reported that several thousand people had been killed in this entire, and injured in this entire
demonstration. Well, it was said and we reported it.
MARANDI: No, no. The Iranians have never said that several thousand people were killed. Reuters, they just make things up. They have not announced the
numbers yet. They probably will soon. But as I said, most of the people killed were either from the police or officers of the law or volunteers or
people who were killed in the crossfire.
But, Christiane, one final point that I want to make to you, and that is that the United States and those in the West, their narrative on Iran is as
clear as day. It is to antagonize the country and to carry out a policy that the Israeli regime wants.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me just --
MARANDI: And if there is war, have no doubt, if they have no doubt that oil and gas supplies in West Asia will come to an end. And that will change
the lives of people across the world. And those people who carried out the war and those who supported it, people in their countries will go and seek
after them.
AMANPOUR: Let me drill back down to what started these protests, which was, in the words of all your leadership, legitimate protests against
economic shortcomings and the collapsing currency. Now, you've just blamed Israel and the United States for that.
But your president, President Pezeshkian, said when this all happened, don't go after the USA or blame anyone. It is we who must properly manage
our problems. It is we who must find a way to solve problems. This is what he said at the beginning of these protests. And he fired the head of the
Central Bank. The supreme leader also said that he understood and accepted that there were problems with the economy. He threatened rioters, but he
said, so why do you say the outside world conspired to collapse the currency when your own leaders are saying that they have to do a better job
to reach and meet people's needs?
MARANDI: No, Christiane. First of all --
AMANPOUR: What do you mean no, Christiane? I'm quoting you. I'm quoting you.
MARANDI: No. Well, listen to my answer. It's not that. You're not the outside world. The West is not the outside world. The West is a minority.
And the rest of the world is disgusted with what the West has done in Gaza. So, it's not the outside world. But when it comes to Iran and Iranian
leaders saying that we have to fix things in the country, of course they do. They have a responsibility.
But the president has repeatedly said that the United States is waging war on us. You're taking one part of what he says and erasing another part, or
one part of what the leader says and erasing another part. There's no doubt that the United States and its allies have been strangling the Iranian
people, ordinary people, for decades now. There's no doubt about that. And the Iranian government is struggling to overcome. And that is why Iran is
moving and joining BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and others, and other organizations, because the West is waging economic
warfare and the Iranians are looking for solutions.
The country has many problems. But this did not begin with the protests. It began with the currency manipulation.
AMANPOUR: OK. You say that, your president says something else. I'm not misquoting him.
MARANDI: No --
AMANPOUR: But what I -- no, no. Just let me ask you a question, because this is one of the big problems, and that is the internet blackout.
Clearly, people like yourself, the leadership, they're busy posting. They can talk when they want. Foreign Minister Araghchi did a 30-minute
interview with American television yesterday. It was a very good line. We cannot see what's going on, and the Iranian people can't get their
information out.
So, I wonder why that is. And I also wonder why, or whether you think, because there have been several uprisings over the last 20, 25 years, and
each one of them has been put down. And I wonder whether you ever wonder whether Iranians -- whether the republic can actually keep existing on the
back of these crackdowns? Is it -- Has it lost its legitimacy?
[13:15:00]
MARANDI: No, there's no crackdown. The Iranian people are actually among the most politically aware in the world because there is a Persian media
empire in the West that's antagonizing Iran day and night, 24 hours a day, which you know very well. Billions of dollars are spent on it a year.
In Iran, on Monday, you forgot to mention that millions of people came to the streets in Tehran and millions of others in other cities in protest
against the rioters and against the terrorists and in support of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why did up to 3 million people come to the
streets in Tehran? Why? It was live coverage. It was rolling coverage on multiple channels. Al Jazeera English was there. RT was there. CNN was
there. Turkish media.
AMANPOUR: Yes. We showed it. We didn't do hours of live coverage, but we definitely showed it.
MARANDI: Are all this -- is that ocean of people, are they ignorant about what goes on in Iran or they know the reality is different from the
narrative produced in the West? Why, by the way, did they shut down the media? It's very obvious. Because these were not spontaneous riots. As soon
as they shut down the media, when the violence was very high, it began to swiftly die down because these people were coordinating with intelligence
services abroad, and when they lost communication, the whole thing went out. And on Saturday evening, there was almost nothing, and since then,
it's been quiet. But there's also a second reason.
AMANPOUR: All right. OK. I've got to move on now.
MARANDI: And that is because of the threat of a U.S. strike, Iranians want to make sure that the Americans at this moment, the Trump regime, have as
little information as possible about Iran's military, so the country is, for the most part, offline. And I don't have --
AMANPOUR: All right. All right. Mr. Marandi, I get it. I know you're on Press TV. I know, I know, but there is internet. I know, but for those who
are allowed to speak out, there is internet. Anyway, you've made your point. I appreciate it. I'm going to move on now. Thanks for joining us
from Tehran, Professor Marandi.
Now, this is a critical moment for Iranians opposed to the regime. Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the former Shah, has some level of support inside.
His attempts to win Trump's backing have not yet succeeded, with the president saying, quote, "He seems very nice, but may not have the support
to take over the country."
So, for more on all of this, let's bring in Nazenin Ansari. She's a journalist and managing editor of the anti-regime news outlet in England,
Kayhan London. Welcome to the program.
NAZENIN ANSARI, IRANIAN JOURNALIST AND MANAGING EDITOR, KAYHAN LONDON: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you something first off, because Mr. Marandi makes at least one point that is true, and that is the Israelis have been openly
posting their involvement. Pompeo openly posted and tweeted on X that, you know, I don't have it right now. Maybe I do have it right now. But he
basically said, we're all with you. And by the way -- oh, here it is. No, it's not there. By the way, Mossad is walking with you as well. This is
catnip for a government who wants to blame the outside world. Why is that allowed to happen?
ANSARI: If I may just start, Professor Marandi reminds me of Baghdad Bob. If you remember, during the Iraq 2003 war, he was Saddam Hussein's
information minister who would just deny reality when the tanks were rolling behind him. So, Mr. Marandi reminds me of being like a Baghdad Bob
with internet, and that he has his press credential, which is Taheriyeh, deny, deflect, deceive. And indeed, he seems to me to be like Professor
Tyrantel (ph).
AMANPOUR: All right.
ANSARI: So, now why did Israelis and the others do that?
AMANPOUR: And Trump himself telling people to protest, I'll come to your help.
ANSARI: Yes, from one side, it is symbolic gestures to those defenseless, unarmed protesters on the street that the world is with you. You are not
alone. But let's not forget, this is a regime that is at war with defenseless protesters, and they're using military-grade ammunition, AK-7s,
tanks, and even certain technology to disrupt internet.
So, if Mr. Marandi is so telling the truth, why doesn't he allow Amnesty International, all the human rights defenders, to go into the prisons to go
and count the dead?
AMANPOUR: To be fair, he's not a member of the government, but I understand where you're coming from.
ANSARI: Yes.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: But more importantly about the opposition, because Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed and late Shah, claims, you know, a leadership role,
and wants to play a transitional role. There have been people waving the monarch's flag, there have been people saying his name. He recently claimed
that 50,000 officers of the Revolutionary Guard were preparing to desert, but he's since had to back away from that and revise it. There hasn't been
any notable dissent in the top level of the military, which many people say would be the beginning of a move away from the current Islamic Republic
government. Why not? Why hasn't he been able to get that?
ANSARI: Well, these numbers of military personnel who Mr. Marandi claims have been shot and killed, who were they? Who were they fighting with? You
know, on -- who were they protecting while they were fighting? So, that's one question to answer.
And secondly, what we need to know is that there's a lot of defections from within the regime in the past few years. And, you know, not only from IRGC,
but also from within the Beit-e Rahbari --
AMANPOUR: That means the --
ANSARI: Yes, the supreme leader's office.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ANSARI: The office of the presidency, all the information that is coming out to us and to other outlets, and even to the Israelis, have been given
by people within the regime. That's why the Israelis could easily, you know, eliminate 20 IRGC commanders. So, this is --
AMANPOUR: Back in June?
ANSARI: Back in June. And so, the thing is, it is very important for the West to stop giving symbolic, and that's what I hear from activists inside
Iran, that they do not want to hear symbolic statements anymore. They heard that during Mr. Obama -- President Obama during the 2009 protest. They
heard that in 2017, 2019, afterwards from President Biden. This time, they want Mr. Trump to prove that he's a man of his words.
AMANPOUR: OK. But and I said it to Mr. Marandi too, Trump has said about Reza Pahlavi, he seems very nice, but I don't know how he'd play within his
own country. And we really aren't up to that point yet. I don't know whether or not his country would accept his leadership. And certainly, if
they would, that would be fine with me.
I mean, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. And yet, the monarchies have been supported by elements of the United States government. And also,
as you know, the Israeli government. So, is that a black mark, do you think, or something that might make them suspect inside Iran?
ANSARI: No, listen, I think, obviously, we will never know who is the -- you know, who will be the next leader or legitimate president or leader,
whoever want to say, unless there is free, fair and open elections inside Iran under international observers.
But secondly, Reza Pahlavi, the prince, the demonstration started end of December, 29th of December, people were on the streets. Come January the
5th, he made his first call for people to come out and protest and keep the streets. And then we saw 9th and 10th. Suddenly, all over Iran, millions
and into some estimates, over 4 million across the country, not in one place.
But this time in Tehran, in North Tehran, in South Tehran, we had Northwest of, in Mashhad, in Qom, people were calling his names. But what he
proposes, and which is, I think, very logical, is let us after, and these protesters are ending, wanting an end to the regime. And after that, after
a period of transition, let there be a referendum, let all parties get together. And this is what we are seeing, you know, in his support, the
Kurds, the Baluchis, the other groups, seven Kurdish groups supported.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because this is very, very important, very important.
ANSARI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, I've read quite a lot of an analysis, you know, preparing for this interview.
ANSARI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: In fact, certain Kurdish groups, other -- you know, other groups that are that are disparate groups, you know, say they haven't actually
been reached out to by the monarchist opposition. And as you know, I know, in your view, and in most people's views, they're not fair and free
elections in Iran ever.
ANSARI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: -But given who is involved, this last time, the more conservative hardline candidate got some 13 million votes, while
Pezeshkian, claiming to be more of a reformer and certainly secular, got 16 million. That means it's a divided country.
[13:25:00]
Does any opposition get that? Do they understand that it's not just a country that is just urging and wanting secularism and pro-Westernism and
all that there's a real division there?
ANSARI: Well, you know, in the last election, look at the number of abstentions, the ones who actually did not go and vote, which was in the
10s, nearly 50 percent did not vote, or maybe even more. I mean, the top candidates in parliamentary elections in parliament right now, they
probably received only 10 percent of the vote. So, that's one thing about the elections.
Secondly, about the Kurdish groups that I referred to, there were the seven major Kurdish groups. And the person that has been in touch with them is
basically also, you know, from Mr. Palavi. I mean, they are in open communication. So, I can send you the names.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I -- yes, yes. OK. Let me just ask you a question, because this has been another complaint, and we've seen it after Mahsa
Amini's killing. There was a group, including Mr. Palavi, and they were going to put aside differences and try to have a unity opposition campaign.
It collapsed after two months. There's been a lot of rivalry.
So, are you convinced that at this time, whether or not, at this time, there is a coherent opposition that can actually do politics in a way that
has to happen? And, joint question, are you concerned that President Trump seems to be moving away from, quote/unquote, "coming to the rescue of the
protesters?"
ANSARI: Number one is that what's different this time is that the protesters on the street are asking for the end to the regime. Only in
2025, there was a poll done by IPSA, which is under the control of the supreme national, one of these supreme offices, and over 92 percent --
AMANPOUR: In Iran?
ANSARI: In Iran. Supreme cultural institution, yes. Supreme national cultural institution. Over 92 percent said they are unhappy with the
situation. That's number one. The degree of resentment is super. Number two, Mahsa in 2022 was a stepping stone to what we see today. This is just
another form, as you know, this type of protest, although we had protests from 2009 onwards, but this specific type of protest, which is very
secular, started in 2017, 2019, 2022. And, this time, the difference is that the opposition is ready, whereas with those, it was not ready.
AMANPOUR: And very finally, we've got 10 seconds. They said that the streets are quiet for the last four days. Do you think this phase is over?
Has it been crushed?
ANSARI: Well, the Iranian in the diaspora are continuing their demonstrations in all capital cities and various cities around the world,
in front of U.S. embassies and also Iranian embassies.
AMANPOUR: But inside Iran for the moment?
ANSARI: Inside Iran, we don't get pictures.
AMANPOUR: Nazenin Ansari, thank you very much indeed.
ANSARI: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And stay with us, because we'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: Like his views on Iran's, self-proclaimed opposition leader Reza Pahlavi, the president has also dismissed Venezuela's opposition leader and
Nobel laureate Marina Corina Machado. Her party at least won an election, but now Trump is meeting her for the first time at the White House, despite
endorsing Maduro's vice president to run the country as long as she did the U.S. bidding.
So, can Machado make her case to Trump now? Let's ask the expert Phil Gunson, who works in Venezuela for the International Crisis Group, and he
joins me from Caracas. So, welcome. Tell me what you think is the maximum Machado can get from her meeting today.
PHIL GUNSON, VENEZUELA AND LATIN AMERICA ANALYST, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: My sense is that she really needs to pivot from a position which up
to now has been very adulatory of Trump, even to the extent of saying that she's going to -- she's dedicated her Nobel Peace Prize to him and that
she's going to hand it to him. She needs to pivot from that to some kind of distancing, I think, from the U.S. position, because otherwise the
opposition really doesn't have its own personality, doesn't have its own identity, and it certainly doesn't have a seat at the table.
AMANPOUR: OK. So --
GUNSON: The only way to get to the table is to somehow become, you know, an independent actor.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's interesting. What did -- do you agree, though, with the White House's apparent assessment, maybe the CIA's weighed in,
because they were obviously on the ground, that she actually did not have the ability to flip the military and get the institutions behind her, or is
that just -- what do you think?
GUNSON: Well, in fact, we said very similar things ourselves in our reports in recent months from Crisis Group. It's not that Maria Corina
doesn't have the support of the people, she clearly does. It's clear, as you say, that the opposition won the election in 2024. The key issue is not
the support of the people in this case, it's the support of the military.
And despite the fact that they assured us, Maria Corina and her people, over and over again that they were going to have that support, obviously
the CIA and the U.S. administration in general decided that that's not the case, that there was a real danger of violent chaos if they went ahead with
regime change.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you are in the country. There hasn't been regime change. But what is the sense there? Are people thrilled with the way things are
turning out? Is the Rodriguez administration or regime still cracking down, as they did at the beginning, on any sign of support that Maduro had been
airlifted out?
GUNSON: I think it's absolutely clear that most Venezuelans are happy to see the back of Maduro. But there's a lot of apprehension. Naturally, a lot
of uncertainty about what comes next. Everybody's very much aware that, you know, the military, the security forces in general, who have been guilty of
massive human rights violations, who can pick you up at a moment's notice because you have something allegedly subversive on your phone. This is all
still going on.
So, people are not taking to the streets. And they're certainly not expressing any support for the U.S. action, because that can end you up in
jail.
AMANPOUR: Interesting, because apparently the acting president also supports the U.S. action. And she's working with the United States. How is
that going to go? Let me just play you this soundbite, actually, from President Trump, after he spoke to Delcy Rodriguez, the interim president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I know that number one, we just had a great conversation today. And she's a terrific person. I mean, she's somebody
that we've worked with very well. Marco Rubio is dealing with her. I dealt with her this morning. We had a call, a long call. We discussed a lot of
things. And I think we're getting along very well with Venezuela.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I mean, do you -- is there any cognitive dissonance there? I mean, on the one hand, he says that. On the other hand, he says he's in
charge of Venezuela. What is the reality on the ground?
GUNSON: Well, it does appear that the U.S. is in charge, in the sense that the people in the government here don't appear to have very much option but
to go along with Trump's plan, and they're putting a brave face on it.
To an extent, Delcy Rodriguez and her brother Jorge, who runs the parliament here, I mean, they are, to some extent, economic reformers. So,
there may not be too much problem in terms of that aspect of the plan. But when it comes to political transition, that's a whole different matter. And
it's particularly sensitive for the people with the guns, the people in the military, the police, the intelligence services, some of whom might well
end up in jail if there were indeed a change of government.
AMANPOUR: And on the other hand, also, again, we've got Trump saying he's in charge, that Delcy Rodriguez and her crew are doing his bidding. But the
U.S. embassy in Venezuela has issued a security alert warning. Do not travel to Venezuela. Depart immediately, they tell Americans. You've also
got the issue of the oil, whereby oil executives were summoned or called to the White House. And some of them, notably the Exxon CEO, told Trump that
Venezuela is uninvestable.
[13:35:00]
Where do you see all this headed? Do you think Trump's aim was the oil? And if so, is it investable?
GUNSON: I think there are a number of different motivations behind this operation. Oil control of Venezuela's oil. After all, it's a country with
the largest oil reserves in the world, that certainly has played a part. The issue of drug trafficking, the issue of migration, and also the issue
of the Chinese presence. Don't forget that part of the reason to control the oil is precisely to stop it going to China. So, I think there are a
number of different things involved here. And it's a complicated thing. It's a complicated undertaking to try to manipulate and negotiate your way
to some kind of a transition in Venezuela.
AMANPOUR: It is really interesting, you know, the idea of dealing with the current government. And then, exactly, I was going to ask you, you've lived
there for decades. Chavez, Maduro, now Rodriguez. You know, in the big picture, do you think, because Rubio and Trump have alluded to the fact
that at some point down the line, there needs to be a democratic transition. Can you see how that would work?
GUNSON: I think it's very difficult to envisage under today's circumstances. Trump has certainly talked about transition. And we know
that Secretary of State Rubio is very much committed to regime change. He wants to see, you know, the opposition in power. He wants to see a
democratic Venezuela.
When Trump talks about transition, I think he's much more in an economic transition and a transition that leaves Venezuela in the hands of people
that, in his view, you know, will make America great again. He's much more focused on what it's going to do for the American people than what it's
going to do for the Venezuelan people, I think.
AMANPOUR: And finally, do you think Machado has had missteps, as has been written about?
GUNSON: Oh, absolutely. I mean, and I think putting all her eggs in the basket of a military intervention by the U.S. is one of them. I think it's
clear that Trump has been -- you know, he's had his own agenda, which is not necessarily the agenda of the Venezuelan opposition. And as I said
before, I think that the way to recover from this is for the opposition collectively to come together. It's different factions, if you like.
And to make demands of the U.S., as well as of the Delcy Rodriguez government, they can't be seen simply in Trump's pocket.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Just a quick yes or no. I was just talking about the Iran thing with the disparate opposition and rivalries and fractured. Do you
think there's any chance the Venezuelan opposition, because they're already sort of quite a lot of them talking past each other?
GUNSON: They will come together if the circumstances are right. But they're very weak, obviously, within the country right now to a large
degree because of the repression. There's not much political space here to organize.
AMANPOUR: Phil Gunson of the International Crisis Group, thank you so much for joining us with that explanation. And we'll be back after this short
break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, President Trump says he has no plans to fire the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, despite the Justice Department's criminal
investigation against him over a $2.5 billion renovation project of the central bank. Powell hit back, saying the move is political retribution for
not following Trump's orders to cut interest rates. Trump denies any prior knowledge of the inquiry, and Powell has garnered support from fellow
central bankers and Republican lawmakers, too.
[13:40:00]
Co-anchor of CNBC's "Squawk Box," Andrew Ross Sorkin, joins Walter Isaacson now to discuss the threat to the bank's independence with this
unprecedented investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you Christiane. And, Andrew Ross Sorkin, welcome back to the show.
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND AUTHOR, "1929": Thanks so much for having me.
ISAACSON: So, earlier this week I wake up, as I usually do, to your DealBook newsletter and there was a sentence that sort of jolted me more
than my chicory coffee. It was right after Fed Chair Jay Powell released a video saying he was under criminal investigation. And you wrote, there are
certain moments that deserve extra reflection, today is one of them. Why is this such a big deal?
SORKIN: You know, I think for the last year that we've watched this administration, we've seen all sorts of elements of what might be described
as lawfare and questions about that. You know, there's also been questions about the independence of the Federal Reserve for the last year as the
president has made it clear that Jay Powell is his enemy and somebody he would like to fire and push out.
And I think this was one of those moments, especially within the business world, that was different. It's been one thing in the past, in history,
there have been moments when presidents have been quite critical, more than critical, publicly about the head of the Federal Reserve and the acts of
the Federal Reserve. But this was different. This is the very idea of potentially prosecuting on a criminal basis the head of the Federal
Reserve. And it comes at a moment when the public and the markets look at that and say that it appears to be a coercive act, which is to say to force
Jay Powell to lower interest rates or to otherwise leave from his term before his term is over.
And I've long waited thinking, is there a moment like this going to even come? And by the way, when a moment like this comes, what is going to
happen next? Will political leaders, will business leaders stand up and say something? And have they? It's been interesting.
There have been a number of folks, both in the Republican Party, in the Senate, that have broken with this president over this issue and done so
publicly. All of the living former Fed chairs that have been in this role came out and condemned this action and this investigation and supported Jay
Powell. Similarly, a number of former Treasury secretaries, including Henry Paulson, a Republican, said the same thing. And then most recently we heard
from Jamie Dimon, one of the most influential bank CEOs in America, publicly support Jay Powell and the independence of the Fed as well.
So, I think you are actually seeing some voice to this and not just some voice to this from the individuals themselves, but even the market has had
a voice of a sort. Insofar as when this first became public on Sunday evening, the markets moved and did so negatively in reaction to it.
ISAACSON: When this happened in 2018, when Trump was saying I got a fire pile, the markets moved a whole lot. Tell me, though, what's really
happening now in the markets? Has it gone down a bit? Maybe Bitcoin or gold is doing something. But are they really reacting?
SORKIN: Well, I think there's a combination of things. One is there's been a numbing. There's been a numbing effect in terms of just so many norms
that have been shattered. To some degree, I think that people in the market don't flinch the way they might have in the past.
The other element is, in part because we've seen such a vocal reaction, I think the markets have settled themselves and said, well, maybe, in fact,
there won't be a, quote/unquote, "prosecution" of Jay Powell. There has been commentary from some senators, Republican senators in Washington. They
may even hold up the next nominee from Trump to be the head of the head of the Fed unless this investigation ends in some kind of very quick way.
So, I do think the markets are taking some solace from that in the context of what does the independence of the Fed look like?
ISAACSON: Well, you said that some Republicans are pushing back and saying they may hold up nominees. The really big one is Thom Tillis of North
Carolina. A few others, Senator Kennedy from my home state of Louisiana. Others have said. But Thom Tillis was very strong. Let me read some of it,
which is, if there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the
Federal Reserve, there should now be none.
They said the credibility of the Justice Department is the one that's in trouble and that he's going to hold things up. Do you think this means a
dam may be breaking that this notion that Republican senators haven't stood up to Trump might be ending?
[13:45:00]
SORKIN: I don't know. This could be a very idiosyncratic moment. You know, Tillis is not running for reelection in part because he's fed up with
what's happened in Washington. And so, he has potentially more license, if you will, than others to perhaps speak his mind. You know, there's also
been some reporting just in the past 24 hours from The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere that the president was putting pressure on Pam Bondi and
other members of the Department of Justice to try to exact the kind of cases and bring the kinds of cases and do the work that he's been pushing
for and demonstrating his frustration about that. And some people have been led to believe that perhaps some of those conversations, in fact, led to
the beginning of this investigation in terms of subpoenas being sent and the like.
ISAACSON: Let's follow that up. You just said it may be the pressure. Was that what happened in this investigation with the U.S. attorney who's close
to Trump?
SORKIN: I think we don't know the answer yet. You know, thus far, the president and I should say this as clearly as he has said it. He says that
he did not know about this investigation, that he had not spoken with the Department of Justice about this investigation and learned of it like
everybody else. I cannot verify that. I do not know if that is the case, but I think it is clear that we've heard his public commentary about Jay
Powell over these past months.
And not just that, we've also seen and heard the kind of close relationship and back and forth he has had with different people who work within the
Department of Justice. So, I think there are still questions about, you know, what led to this in truth and whether the president specifically said
to his colleagues at the Department of Justice, please go do this, or they felt pressure to do it to appease him. They may be one of the same in the
end.
ISAACSON: Well, let's be clear what Chairman Powell thinks. I mean, what he said was the threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal
Reserve setting interest rates best on -- based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the
president. So, he's pretty clear. And doesn't it make sense that he kind of knows why this is happening?
SORKIN: Well, look, there there's two views of his decision to publicly release that video, which is really unprecedented for a Federal Reserve
chair. One is that, indeed, in fact, he very much believes that this is lawfare and that this is being used as a coercive effort to push him out
early or to influence how he reacts. And there is another view that his decision to go public in such a way is to shape perhaps the narrative.
And obviously, the president and the Department of Justice have suggested that they believe that they are bringing this case in good faith or this
investigation, I should say, in good faith. They have said that they sent two letters or communications to the Federal Reserve. I believe those
communications happened in December, asking for more information and did not receive it.
ISAACSON: Yes. But I mean, this is just something about a construction of a building. This is not a criminal case that seems to make sense.
SORKIN: Well, that's the thing. Look, there are lots of different avenues for the American public and Congress and others to. Hold the Federal
Reserve and other institutions in the United States accountable, if you will, for spending. So, if the issue is how are they spending the money?
Clearly, in this case, there is demonstrable evidence that it is something like $700 million over budget.
If there was evidence that this was being misused and lied about, you don't have to have a criminal investigation to find out more. You could hold
hearings. You could have auditors go in. There are other things you can do. A criminal investigation is a very specific thing to do and carries
enormous consequences.
ISAACSON: How do you think this might affect interest rates in the Fed? What it's going to do later in the month?
SORKIN: Oh, goodness. In truth, I actually think this is creating potentially more independence for the Fed, at least temporarily, insofar
that there could be a backlash. I think there are members of the Fed and also, by the way, other central bankers from around the world that have now
come out in support of Jay Powell and this Federal Reserve.
[13:50:00]
So, the idea of trying to either kick him out or change his view, I think, in fact, it will be strengthened to some degree. And not only was there an
expectation that Jay Powell would leave his seat in May as the chair, but there was also the possibility that he would retire from the board
entirely. He could stay on as a governor. In fact, perhaps because of what's just happened, it may be more likely that he does stay on for some
period of time.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you the most basic question. Why shouldn't the president be able to help decide what interest rates are? Why should the
Fed be totally independent? Why shouldn't we have some political control where we decide to hold the president accountable if there's inflation?
SORKIN: I think in the end, history has demonstrated that you need to have an independent Federal Reserve, in part because they are setting interest
rates and they need to be able to do so without fear or favor, without trying to get whoever is in office elected by lowering interest rates
temporarily or raising interest rates temporarily.
And even more importantly than that, I would actually argue in a crisis, in a panic moment, having written about 1929 and having written about 2008 and
even what the Federal Reserve ultimately did during the pandemic, oftentimes the Federal Reserve has to do things that are uniquely
politically unpopular and unpalatable. The bailouts in 2008, I know there's lots of debate about that, but ultimately, arguably, it helped keep the
country from really getting into a long depression.
Similarly, during the pandemic, there was an effort to really throw money at the problem, which could have been politically unpalatable in that
moment, and yet you need a Federal Reserve that's willing to do things without fear that the president of the United States or any other
politician is going to be trying to move the dials.
ISAACSON: In your book, "1929," you have a truly wonderful, you have a lot of wonderful characters, but one of them is Senator Carter Glass of
Virginia, who helps create the Fed. Tell me about the compromises done that created the Fed and why that either makes it stronger or more vulnerable
today.
SORKIN: Well, so one of the keys to the Federal Reserve was to have an important and central office in Washington, but was also to have regional
offices around the country so that Wall Street didn't take over, didn't have more power. That was critical. And the independence piece was also
critical. And they were aware of that because they understood that there were going to be decisions that at times were going to be politically
unpopular.
And when you really dig in and even think about the crash of 1929 and look at the fact that, frankly, the Fed did not act perhaps the way they should
have, one of the reasons for that, arguably, if you read some of the diaries and notes and memos of the members of the board during that period,
was because of political pressure. Because the Federal Reserve was such a new entity, born in 1913, still considered an experiment of sorts, there
was a worry that if they actually raised interest rates to try to tamp down speculation, that they could tip the economy over and they would get
blamed. And not just that they get blamed, but that the entire experiment would be eliminated.
ISAACSON: Tell me about what we can learn from overseas. I know that the Turkish president has interfered with his central bank. Is that a warning
sign for us?
SORKIN: There's no question that there have been a whole number of instances where you've seen certain countries, some of which have been
described as banana republics and others, where the head of state effectively has tried to manage the economy and manage their central bank.
And in some of those cases, you have seen massive inflation spikes, in part because the investor class says this is not as trustworthy a borrower as we
thought, given that the controls are not independent.
ISAACSON: Do you think this will finally change President Trump's relationship with the people you cover, the people in the backdrop of you
right there, which is basically Wall Street, the markets, business and corporate America?
SORKIN: So, that's where I'm less clear. I will say, you know, in this moment where the Republicans control the White House, Congress and the
Senate, there's always a question of who is the governor, if you will, over the president of the United States. And from my vantage point, actually,
the market has been perhaps one of the only real governors over the president.
[13:55:00]
And I say that because if you remember last April, quote/unquote, "Liberation Day," the day that the president announced his tariff plan, the
bond market really reacted negatively. And then he pulled back. Again, in the fall, we had a similar situation. He talked about much higher tariffs
for China. The market reacted and he pulled back. There are very few times and very few people on an individual level in Washington or elsewhere that
seem to have forced the hand of the president the way the markets have.
ISAACSON: Andrew Ross Sorkin, thank you so much for joining us.
SORKIN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And watch this space. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
