Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe and "War with Russia" Author Gen. Richard Shirreff (Ret.); Interview with Allianz Chief Economic Adviser and University of Pennsylvania Professor at the Wharton School Mohamed El-Erian; Interview with Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk; Interview with The New York Times Reporter Kenneth Vogel. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 16, 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.
Under mounting pressure, Trump casts around for a coalition of naval forces to join his war on Iran and keep oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.
No takers so far.
Then, I ask leading global economist Mohamed El-Erian what's at stake amid the biggest oil disruption in history.
Plus, a Hail Mary pass to make up for shortages and price hikes by easing oil sanctions on Russia. But where does that leave Ukraine now in its fifth
year under Russia's all-out war? Former Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk joins me.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNETH VOGEL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: No matter if you go through the proper channels or not, it's going to be controversial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Trump's presidential pardons. New York Times investigative reporter Kenneth Vogel talks to Michel Martin about what he calls a growing
pardon industry at the White House.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
As Iran ups its threats to American interests in the region, a growing energy crisis is sending oil prices soaring around the world. Tanker
traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has mostly stopped since the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran two weeks ago. The Strait usually carries
around 20 percent of the world's oil supply, but Tehran is allowing only a handful of vessels through it under, quote, "special conditions."
President Trump's been calling on China and U.S. allies to assist in unblocking the Strait. He's even warning NATO will face a, quote, "very bad
future if they fail to assist." So, far, no countries have answered Trump's call or his pressure.
The German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, said, quote, "This is not our war. We have not started it." And the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer,
says he's working with allies, but for now refuses to get involved militarily. He brushed aside those calling on him to have rushed to war
without fully knowing the mission or the exit strategy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Our decision should be based on a calm, level-headed assessment of the British national interest. And that if
we are to send our servicemen and women into harm's way, the very least they deserve is to know that they do so on a legal basis and with a proper,
thought-through plan. My leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That's clear enough. So, to assess the NATO response and the prospects of a military solution to unblocking the Strait of Hormuz, former
Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Richard Sherriff joins me. Welcome back to our program.
GEN. RICHARD SHIRREFF (RET.), FORMER NATO DEPUTY SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE AND AUTHOR, "WAR WITH RUSSIA": Thank you very much, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Can I start by asking you, because you have been sent to war and to war games, and you've been, you know, Deputy SACEUR NATO. Do you believe
the prime minister is correct in the way he lays out the conditions and basis for any British involvement, and what the Germans are saying? This is
not NATO's war. This is not our war. We didn't start it.
SHIRREFF: I think the prime minister is absolutely right to say that we've got to think this through very, very carefully. And of course, Britain and
Germany, indeed all other European and Western allies, are caught with a serious dilemma. Number one, it is in our interest to see the Strait of
Hormuz opened up.
But number two, it is absolutely not in our interest to give President Trump a blank check for a major military operation to open up the Strait of
Hormuz, because that puts us absolutely on the side of America. And as and when Trump walks away from this, as he surely will, that will leave those
who side with him owning the problem that is left behind.
AMANPOUR: So, do you think -- what do you think of him saying, quote, "you know, NATO will have a very bad future if it doesn't come to the rescue?"
[13:05:00]
You know, do you think he's going to be able to do what we understand he's doing, trying to assemble a coalition of countries to open the Strait
properly?
SHIRREFF: Well, I turn the question back to Trump, because the reality is that ever since he was inaugurated, NATO has pretty much been held below
the waterline by America's clear statement from Vance and Hegseth last year that America would not come to, would not underpin European security. And
reinforced, of course, by Trump's actions in January, when he threatened the territorial integrity of a NATO ally.
So, trust in America in the alliance has been broken. And, you know, you have to think of the alliance as a family of member states. And trust is
underpinning everything, like in any family. And when that's broken, it's really difficult to rebuild. So, I'm not surprised that there is this real
reluctance to dance to Trump's tune. And don't forget, of course, this is a war he started. This is not an alliance war, although all our interests are
now involved as a result of his actions.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you just a quick clarification and a definition of what NATO is? This would be offensive actions by NATO if it was called in.
Is this a NATO, does this fit a NATO mission? Let's say the other partners were willing to do it. Is NATO purely defensive?
SHIRREFF: NATO is the -- exists to defend the territorial integrity of NATO's land borders, to defend its airspace, but also to defend and protect
its sea lines of communications. So, I think it's very, very easy -- you know, it is a fact that NATO's sea line of communication through the
Straits of Hormuz is being threatened. So, any NATO operation to protect the Straits of Hormuz or to open it up, I think, would be a defensive
operation to protect NATO's interests, which are being threatened.
AMANPOUR: OK. Now, how would you -- I know you've had this deputy SACEUR head on, you've been in charge of land forces. How would you tell us how
one could today, quote/unquote, "open the Strait of Hormuz"? How does one do it when you have Iran sending, you know, missiles, drones, other such
things? Apparently, 16 ships and tankers have been attacked since Thursday. So, there's an ongoing retaliation by Iran, and it's said that it would use
this if it was attacked, because this is its only leverage in an asymmetrical war. So, given those conditions, how would you open it up?
SHIRREFF: Well, if I was looking at this as a joint commander, I'd say, firstly, there is a major naval component, of course there is, because it
is the Navy which has to conduct the demining and to escort tankers through the Strait, as they did back in the tanker wars of the 1980s. There is also
a major air and, quite possibly, a land component. The air to provide the cover to target missile batteries and the like.
But I think any operation like this requires, very likely, some form of presence on the land, because it is on the land that the decisions will be
made and where the decisive effect takes place, in order to clear missile launchers and to potentially erect some form of anti-drone defense to
prevent drones penetrating into the Strait. So, I think this is a very complex operation. It is not to be undertaken lightly, and it would need
overwhelming force if it is to succeed.
AMANPOUR: So, you're talking about land. So, there's Kharg Island, that's one piece of land that the president has, you know, expressed kind of
interest in possibly occupying and taking over in order to choke Iran's entire economic lifeline. And then there's the other land, which is the
coastline that is running down by Kharg Island.
So, if the U.S. were to land marines or whatever on those pieces of territory, would that be an easy operation to hold, or are they subject to
fire from the land?
SHIRREFF: Well, it'd be a major operation. And you mentioned Kharg Island. There's been a lot of talk about Kharg Island, and indeed there is a marine
expeditionary unit steaming towards the Gulf from Japan. But if you're to mount an amphibious operation to land troops on Kharg Island, you've got to
get them through the Strait of Hormuz. So, you've got that problem, firstly, which means that if you are to take Kharg Island, it probably has
to be an airborne operation.
[13:10:00]
So, you know, this is really complex stuff. And as I say, it's going to require significant force. I'm sure America can apply massive force very
quickly and concentrate it. And indeed, according to the media, they've been bombing our installations on Kharg Island, and the Iranians would not
be able to resist.
But it's one thing to take it, it's another thing to hold it. And then what do you do with it? And similarly, it's one thing to mount an operation to
open up the Strait of Hormuz, land an amphibious force, secure the coastline to allow a convoy or series of convoys through for a specific
period of time. But then what do you do? Do you occupy it permanently? Then you're into a different order of magnitude altogether.
And even then, I would say, just the mechanics of launching an operation to secure a temporary passage through the line of the Strait of Hormuz by
landing amphibious troops would itself be a major operation.
AMANPOUR: General, the U.S. administration, from Trump on to Secretary of Defense Hegseth, have sort of poo-pooed the idea that the Strait of Hormuz
was an issue, that oil prices are an issue. Now, they clearly know that it is an issue, but they keep saying short-term pain for long-term gain.
So, with that, at this point, more than two -- nearly three weeks in now, who do you think has got the upper hand in this asymmetrical war now?
SHIRREFF: Well, America and Israel have pulverized and blown, blasted Iran to bits. And Iran's military capability, by all accounts, has been severely
degraded. So, in that sense, in a sort of attritional industrial warfare sense, America and Israel have the upper hand.
But right now, because of the Strait of Hormuz, because of the economic implications globally, I think President Trump is in danger of looking
pretty stupid now. Because clearly, he and his military planners did not war game the effect and likely second and third order impacts of their
operations, which have led not only to regional war, to the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, and to economic global meltdown. So, I think he's got
himself, in a sense, the Iranians, for all their weakness, have got Trump over a barrel now.
AMANPOUR: To quote a phrase. How about the Putin effect? Because you have been very, very obviously interested and concerned and based in Europe.
This Putin war against Ukraine. World's attention is shifting off Ukraine. So, many Patriot missiles have been used by American allies, whereas
Ukraine is desperate for these Patriot missiles. And Russia is benefiting from the oil price hike and a temporary sanctions holiday on its oil. What
do you think that's going to mean for the war on Ukraine?
SHIRREFF: I'm so glad you mentioned it, because all the media attention has been focused on Iran and America's war on Iran. And as you say, quite
right to highlight, the beneficiary of this war is Putin, filling up his coffers with oil dollars and reducing the support -- the reduction in
support being given to Ukraine.
This is the war. This is the real issue, certainly for Europe. And we should not forget about that. And of course, because Trump is focused on
this, everybody else is focused on it. But we must absolutely double down. Europeans should be saying, absolutely, this is the moment to be doubling
down and increasing support for Ukraine.
And as I said constantly, there's never going to be a lasting ceasefire in Ukraine until Russia is forced to accept defeat in Ukraine. And that is
only going to happen when Europe and Canada as well, because you can, right out of America, I think, step up to the mark and make the necessary
sacrifices to resource a strategy to support Ukraine, defeat Russia in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: All right. General Sir Richard Shirreff, Deputy NATO Commander formerly, thank you very much indeed for being with us. And stay with CNN.
We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: As we've been discussing, the world is facing the biggest oil disruption in history due to the chokehold we've been talking about in the
Strait of Hormuz. The International Energy Agency says it'll release 400 million barrels of emergency oil in attempt to ease the crisis. But still,
Brent crude has risen to its highest since July 2022. Gas prices are up 26 percent in the United States and grocery prices could soar as even
fertilizers can't get through. Economists are watching with some alarm, warning that it could all lead to that nightmare scenario of stagflation.
Mohamed El-Erian is the chief economic adviser at Allianz and professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. And he's joining me
from the United States to explain what all this means for the global economy.
So, welcome to the program. You heard General Sir Richard Shirreff talk about the military implications of even relieving this situation right now.
What is your sort of headline of how this is affecting the global economy and for how long?
MOHAMED EL-ERIAN, CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER, ALLIANZ AND PROFESSOR AT THE WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: So, my headline will be that
we risk going from short-term disruption to long-term structural damage to the oil market. You heard the guest say there is no quick end to this war.
Plus, as you pointed out, it's an asymmetrical war, plus the objectives of the three warring parties aren't aligned.
So, the increase in the oil price is going to persist for a while. And that is going to mean not only higher interest rates, Christiane, but it's going
to also mean lower growth, high unemployment, and a greater risk of financial instability.
AMANPOUR: You know, the -- last week, not even now, but last week, Saudi Arabia's Aramco is, you know, the world's top oil exporter, the CEO chief
warns that there will be catastrophic consequences for the world if the war continues to disrupt that shipping. And you've sort of, you know,
enumerated a bit. We talk about this word stagflation. For people, tell me what that means. I've even heard, and tell me if I'm wrong, that it could
lead to a 2008-style recession if it's not ended soon.
EL-ERIAN: OK. So, first, stagflation has two elements that add to bad news. Stag means economic growth comes down, the economy stagnates. Flation
means prices go up and you get higher inflation. So, the average person finds that their purchasing power is eroded because of higher prices, and
they start worrying about their income, their employment income, because lower growth may lead to higher unemployment.
The other element of stagflation is that it paralyzes the policymakers. It's very hard to counter stagflation in the short run. So, it's something
that you don't want to see. We haven't really seen it since the '70s, and it took quite a toll on the global economy in the '70s.
AMANPOUR: Wow. Since the '70s. I remember the oil crisis in the '70s, but I hadn't computed that this is the worst potential since then. So, I'm
going to play in a minute a soundbite from President Trump. He's just had a press conference talking about how all these countries, including China,
should come to the rescue.
But here, first and foremost, is Kevin Hassett. He is Trump's National Economic, head of the Economic Council. He's speaking to CBS over the
weekend, basically saying, you know, Trump administration doesn't seem particularly concerned about short or long-term effect of all of this. Let
me play it for you, OK?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: America's in a very strong position. They think that they're going to harm the U.S.
economy and get President Trump to back down. There couldn't be anything that was a stupider thing to say.
[13:20:00]
Because the bottom line is that our economy has got all this momentum in the world and we've got lots and lots of oil. We expect that the global
economy is going to have a big positive shock as soon as this is over. And we're still being briefed that it would be four to six weeks from the
beginning and that we're ahead of schedule.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, and that was delivered with a big smile. Is that dreamer vision or is that from an American perspective, the Trump administration's
perspective, reasonable?
EL-ERIAN: So, in relative term, the U.S. economy is better placed than virtually any other economy to handle the stagflationary wind that's now
blowing because of this war through the global economy. That is unambiguous. But that's a relative statement.
In absolute term, growth will be lower. Inflation will be higher. And the risk of financial instability will also be higher. So, yes, we will
outperform other countries in the U.S. will. However, we will be less well off than we would have been otherwise. That's the short-term.
The long-term is hotly debated. There is some sort of view that this would reduce risk in a meaningful way long-term. A lot of that depends, as you
know, as to what happens to Iran after this war. And there's many different scenarios there.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, one of the scenarios, according to Peter Navarro, White House adviser who wrote in The Wall Street Journal, the Iran war will
lower energy prices. With that in mind, I want to play, because I'm going to ask you about that, what Trump has just talked about, and he's talking
about China's role in alleviating the current crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: China is a great example. They get 91 percent of their oil from the Hormuz Straits, which we protected for years.
And it always bothered me that we have these countries. Japan gets 95 percent of its from the Straits, the Hormuz Straits. And it always bothered
me that we're protecting and we don't need them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, it's the same sort of theme. We don't need them. We're protecting them. Why do we need to? Blah, blah. But can you explain to me
what he thinks China and Japan can do? They haven't responded, nor is South Korea, nor of the Europeans to the call to come and help open the Straits.
And then, as I said, Navarro said the Iran war will lower energy prices.
EL-ERIAN: OK. So, first, it is a fact that China in particular is highly dependent on oil coming from the Straits, not only from Iran, but also from
other countries. And they are a major importer and therefore they have a lot to lose. Now, they have built up storage, so it's not an immediate
issue, but it is true. The argument then goes, well, then China should help in opening up the Strait. But as you heard from the previous guests, that
is a big step for any country to do. So, other countries don't make that link quite as quickly as the U.S. does.
In terms of longer-term, it depends what you feel will happen in Iran. If Iran -- and I hope this doesn't happen for the region, but if Iran ends up
being in Iraq, ends up being a Libya, where there's a civil war, I can assure you that the neighboring countries who are producing oil won't be
comfortable about this. They will not want another big area of instability. And therefore, oil prices over the longer-term will not go down as Peter
Navarro hopes. If, however, this ends up with a stable Iran and geopolitical risk is reduced in a meaningful way, then Peter Navarro's
argument would stand.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, it really depends on the end game to all of this. Can I ask you, because I asked you a little bit before, I'm not sure that you
answered me, about a possible recession 2008 style? This all comes after that recession, after the COVID disruption, after a whole -- you know, the
tariff chaos that the world has been thrown into Trump's tariffs.
It's got a much bigger and deeper pool of sort of crisis, it seems to be. The world keeps trying to climb out of the shocks, the economic shocks that
has been delivered since at least 2008. Where is the sort of the resilience? Do you think there is resilience to keep climbing out?
EL-ERIAN: That resilience getting eroded and it's about financial resilience and about human resilience. I think that the probability of a
recession today is 35 percent. So, it's not overwhelming, but it is high enough for you to worry about. Why? Because the higher oil prices, the
higher energy prices are coming on top of other things.
[13:25:00]
And three in particular are important. One is we got data last week that shows that the U.S. economy was slowing going into the war. The GDP growth
for the fourth quarter was halved from 1.4 to 0.7. So, this is not as dynamic an economy as we thought it was. The second reason is that policy
optionality is much more limited. We already run a very large fiscal deficit. We can't simply throw money at it. The bond markets are getting
impatient. And in addition, the central bank is not going to cut interest rates because it's worried about inflation. So, you don't have policy
offsets like we had at COVID.
And then the third reason is because we have financial fragility that's totally separate from the war. We talk about private credit. We're talking
about the A.I. bubble that dynamically can get involved in all this. So, when you put all these three things together, you suddenly are facing a
recession risk of 35 percent. It may not be an overwhelming recession, but if you look at the overwhelming probability, but the impact would be really
meaningful if it were to materialize.
AMANPOUR: And I guess quickly, what keeps you up at night? Because today the New York Times reports that Trump is getting advice from the Saudis to
keep hitting the Iranians hard. Before we understood the Gulf was trying to dissuade Trump from attacking. Today, the Iranian foreign minister said
neighboring states were enabling it. And he's upped the threats to American interests in these neighboring Gulf states. And, you know, financial
centers have been threatened and all the rest of it. What does all this mean for the Gulf?
EL-ERIAN: So, it means major disruption. There's a Goldman Sachs study that came out today showing that countries like Kuwait would see 14 percent
of their GDP knocked off. That's a lot on them. It puts in doubt. I don't think in permanent doubt, but it puts in doubt the special status that
these countries were looking for. Think of Dubai. Think of Abu Dhabi. So, it is really meaningful for the region. I think the region will recover
quickly.
But what keeps me up at night is I don't see the off ramps because I don't really see them. And I see misaligned objectives between Israel, U.S. and
Iran. And I see the very difficult task of ending an asymmetrical war. So, you know, it keeps me up at night that there is no clear end to this
conflict as yet.
AMANPOUR: Mohamed El-Erian, thank you very much indeed for joining us. Exploiting the war in the Middle East, that is President Zelenskyy
describing Russia as Putin causes, quote, "even greater destruction in Ukraine." Firing a barrage of 500 drones and missiles on Ukraine over the
weekend that killed at least six people.
The war on Iran is using up Patriot air defense missiles in the Middle East, which are also desperately needed in Kyiv. Plus, Putin is getting
that break on oil sanctions and the soaring price per barrel.
Former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk is joining me now. Welcome to the program. Welcome back.
ANDRIY ZAGORODNYUK, FORMER UKRAINIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, from a Ukrainian perspective, just tell me how you're feeling as you're watching this war, as you're watching the eye taken off
Ukraine. And as I described, these benefits to Putin.
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, clearly, Putin has more incentives to continue the aggression than he had before. There's been a certain effort, coordinated
efforts to make his economy suffer. Clearly, this effort is failing at the moment because he's making more money on the oil prices. And generally
speaking, with the removal of the sanctions and with the lack of attention to what he's doing right now, he feels more free to proceed with his
aggression plans.
So, we don't feel that this is going to end soon in Ukraine at all. And we are preparing for the longer engagement, longer war. And basically, all we
think right now is how to close the sky, so to speak, because we have indeed, as you just mentioned, a lot of new airstrikes with drones, with
rockets and so on. And basically, we see more escalation than de- escalation, frankly speaking.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me how you assess in terms of numerical value and effectiveness the need for Patriots. You've been asking for a long, long
time for the missiles to go in your batteries, the anti-missile defense system. And you see so many being used in the Middle East. Let me see if I
can find numbers. I'm not sure that I can find numbers, but, OK.
So, Zelenskyy has been saying that Middle East partners have more Patriots than we got from the U.S. and Europeans during all the war. They've used
more than 800 Patriot missiles during the first 24 to 36 hours of the Iran war than we had during all these months and years of our war.
[13:30:00]
And I think at one point he said, let's do a trade. I'll send, you know, more efficient and cheaper anti-drone drones. And you send us the Patriots
that we need to take down Russia's ballistic missiles.
ZAGORODNYUK: Clearly, Patriot missiles become like an extremely important element of anyone's defense. And there is a shortage of them. There's a
global shortage. And with the escalation of the wars around the world, this becomes a bigger and bigger issue. So, there's been discussions about
manufacturing alternative systems, but this is probably highest end of the ground-based air defense technology. It's not that easy to start anything
alternative or even increase the production of existing ones.
And what we see right now is that making missiles is easier than to make anti-missile defense, particularly if we're talking about ballistic
missiles. For instance, Ukraine is making new ballistic missiles itself right now. Clearly, Iran is making and Russia is raiding its production
over and over again, while the only meaningful defense against the ballistic missiles is Patriot. So, this disbalance is enormous. And if we
see escalation of wars around the world, this disbalance will grow.
And this is clearly a threat for stability anywhere in the world. And we need to do something about that. And frankly speaking, there's not much
proposals right now around.
AMANPOUR: Right. Are you still there? Can you hear me?
ZAGORODNYUK: Apart from increasing the existing production (INAUDIBLE).
AMANPOUR: OK. We seem to have lost you.
ZAGORODNYUK: Yes, I can.
AMANPOUR: OK. I can hear you there. I can see you. Let's try to ask you another question, all right? So, peace talks are off. Peskov from Russia
says, yes, there's been a pause. This is what President Zelenskyy told CNN this weekend about the relative pressure that's been put on him versus on
Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: First of all, Russia gave feel sure that America has to make big pressure on Putin. Otherwise, he will not
negotiate. He wants only ultimatums from us that we have to withdraw from our territory. But he will not end with this. No, no, it's not enough for
him. His appetite is very good.
Of course, the situation is very big appetite. I mean, of course, the situation in Iran gives him more money. And the process of taking off the
sanctions, these new sanctions policy also helpful for him personally.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I guess I want to know from you how you think Putin will use the money, because Ukraine's fortunes were changing somewhat on the front
lines, recently improved. Starlink shut off for Russians and Ukraine was taking some territory back. And as we know, Russia's economy was showing
some strain. So, what do you think Russia will do immediately with the bounty that it will get in its coffers?
ZAGORODNYUK: It's very simple. They will increase production of weapons systems and they will keep on escalating the war in Ukraine. That's for
sure, because we see that Putin is absolutely adamant to continue the war. There hasn't been any single indicator that they are ready for the real
meaningful negotiations and the -- actually thinking about stopping the war.
So, all they will do right now, they will be increasing the pressure on Ukraine and also threatening Europe. So, there is a new emerging threat to
Europe because Europe is extremely worried about the possible escalation from Russia. And that risk is clearly will grow.
Russia will use money in order to not to make their people more, you know, well off. I mean, they will -- and their economy stronger. They will use
those money to increase their war effort. And we're seeing this right now. We will see this in the future, unfortunately.
AMANPOUR: And there had been reports and President Zelenskyy confirmed from his perspective that Russia gave drones to the Shaheds. They're using
Iranian licenses. They built and produced a lot of them. And he has -- he says that the Iranian regime has used, you know, intelligence to give to --
you know, got by got by Russia. That's from his perspective.
Now, Steve Witkoff basically told the press that we talked to the Russian leadership and they denied that they're giving any intelligence or special
information -- I can see you smiling -- to the Iranians. And he said, Witkoff, we have to take them at their word. What is your reaction to that?
ZAGORODNYUK: Well, Russia and Iran are allies. They are very close. They are exchanging technologies. They're paying each other.
[13:35:00]
Iran has provided the technology for Shahed drones, which are all over Ukraine right now. And Russia is helping with the money, with the other,
you know, resources to Iran to succeed. There's absolutely no doubt that with this close relationship, there is an exchange of intelligence. And
certainly, whatever Russia can do to help Iran, they're doing this.
And so -- and we also know that Russia lies all the time. They're not saying truth. I mean, they're clearly misleading pretty much everyone
around the world and particularly in the West. And so, to trust Russia, that Russia is not doing that, that that's a bit naive, frankly speaking.
AMANPOUR: And why do you think Russia or China or Iranian allies are not coming to Iran's defense? How do you read that?
ZAGORODNYUK: I don't think Russia has capability to do that. Russia is currently completely, massively sunk in Ukraine. They cannot achieve any
meaningful progress. And all they do right now, they're bombing our cities every day, but they cannot achieve any progress on land. And clearly,
they're failing in the sea.
So, Russia, despite their economic power and an increasing economic power, they have problems with their armed forces. They are struggling to recruit
enough people. They are losing more people than they recruit right now. I don't think they can actually help Iran apart from shipping some weapon
systems and some technologies and maybe even money and definitely intelligence.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Andriy Zagorodnyuk, thank you very much indeed for joining us with this very important update. And we'll be right back after
this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, since the start of his second term, President Trump has pardoned more than 1,800 people. Over the weekend, Josh Nass, who's a New
York attorney and lobbyist, was charged for trying to extort more money out of his former client, Joseph Schwartz. Schwartz was a nursing home
executive who had been convicted of tax crimes and reportedly paid Nass $100,000 to get him clemency. And ahead of this development, investigative
reporter Kenneth Vogel spoke to Michel Martin about the emergence of what he calls a pardon industry.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Kenneth Vogel, thanks so much for talking with us.
KENNETH VOGEL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, it's great to be with you. Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: You know, a lot of people sort of outside of, you know, Washington, the legal affairs, et cetera, might have started thinking about
pardons because one of the first things that President Trump did in his second term was pardon all of the people who had been convicted in
connection with the January 6th attacks on the Capitol.
You've been looking at something else. You've been looking at something that you call kind of a growing pardon industry around this administration.
How did you start looking at that and what made you think about that?
VOGEL: Yes, we really started looking at this at the end of the first Trump administration, when, of course, there was the struggle, including
January 6th, by him and his supporters to cling to power. But at the same time, there was this sort of network of allies around him who were pushing
to use this lame duck period, which they knew would be coming to an end, to position clients and allies and supporters to get clemency from Trump.
[13:40:00]
Of course, it's not uncommon for a president at the end of a term to use that period of time to pardon people in those categories because it is a
controversial decision. No matter if you go through the proper channels or not, it's going to be controversial.
And so, they wait to the end of the term to do it because they think, well, I'm almost out of here. Even as Trump was protesting that he wasn't going
to be out of there, there was this sort of machinery behind the scenes that had created a pipeline to get these pardon applications to his desk. And
these were not pardon applications that had gone through the Justice Department process, for the most part. They were overwhelmingly ones that
were brought to his attention by allies and supporters, some of whom were getting paid to bring them to his attention.
MARTIN: One of the cases you highlight is that of a man named Joseph Schwartz. He's a former nursing home executive. He paid more than a million
dollars to lobbyists, lawyers, political operatives seeking a pardon, and he got one after serving only a few weeks in prison. You report that Mr.
Schwartz, you tried to reach out to him, he didn't answer that. But tell us what this says. What does this case say about how the process is unfolding?
VOGEL: Yes. Well, his case was particularly interesting to us, both because it was sort of a mystery. Like when he got pardoned, it wasn't
immediately clear, as it is in some of these other cases. Oh, this person knew this person or this person paid that person. In fact, the people who
were on record because they filed lobbying disclosure reports that revealed that they had been paid by Schwartz were not people who we typically think
of as Trump insiders. They were these right-wing operatives who were sort of conspiracists who don't really have the word, didn't strike us as having
that kind of juice in Trump world.
So, we started looking around and we found that, oh, this guy went through a real trial and error process where first he pays these two sort of right
wing conspiracists $960,000. It's not working. He started paying them before he went to prison. He goes to prison. He starts paying another
lobbyist who has ties to sort of pro-Israel evangelical and Jewish circles that are influential with Trump. And then that lobbyist recommends hiring
two other lawyers who have ties to people inside the White House who were involved in the pardon process, including a lawyer who had represented
Alice Johnson, the pardon czar, were for her clemency back in the first Trump term.
And so, it wasn't even after all of our reporting, it wasn't definitively, you know, we couldn't draw a direct line between this payment to that
person to the pardon, but it kind of offered a snapshot through which we could look at this emerging industry and the ways that different people are
seeking to sort of advance clemency cases by using their connections to Trump and by crafting arguments that they think are going to resonate with
Trump.
MARTIN: Is there something different about Trump's first term and his second term?
VOGEL: Yes. Well, certainly it started earlier and it started with a bang, as you mentioned, with the 16 -- nearly 1,600 pardons of people who were
convicted in -- for charges related to January 6th. But then he very quickly pivoted and started pardoning other people who were a combination
of some that had sort of a celebrity link, there were some that related to causes he pardoned, these two police officers in Washington, D.C., who had
been convicted in the, and it's related to a chase that killed an unarmed black man. And then he, you know, moved on to pardoning anti-abortion
protesters who had been convicted in relation to their activities outside of an abortion clinic.
So, these are sort of political cases where it's like, OK. he's trying to make a political point that he thinks will appeal to some element of his
base. But then there were others who were these two conservatives, very pro-Trump reality TV stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley. Well, that's sort of
more of the celebrity front.
And then there are a host of these fraudsters, which is the most interesting one to us because there's not necessarily an obvious political
connection. In fact, there's an administration that is making a great political stand about cracking down on fraud and simultaneously pardoning
all of these fraudsters who were convicted in some cases, not just of defrauding, you know, customers or clients, but of defrauding the U.S.
government, of Medicare fraud, of tax fraud. And he's pardoning these people.
And these tend to be the most affluent offenders who either have the connections themselves or have given money or have the resources to hire
someone. So, those are the ones that I've focused on because they're the sort of they play the most of my sort of specialty, my beat, which is
following the money and looking at the various ways that money influences politics. And as you intimated, there is this new industry, the pardon
industrial complex, they call it, that is -- you know, has become in some ways a critical sort of channel for money influencing politics.
MARTIN: So, lobbying has been a part of politics, gosh, since what, like the 1800s, right? And the president's pardon power is absolute.
[13:45:00]
Now, I know that during the Obama administration, there was an attempt to create some sort of a system to use the pardon power to address
circumstances that where public opinion had changed. But lobbying has always been a part of it. I remember there are some -- during the Clinton
administration, there were people who were pardoned that many people now look at that. And so, what happened there? Is there something distinct even
when you think about those earlier eras?
VOGEL: Yes. And your question actually points to two extremes of the process. You know, Obama worked through this system, the system that was
created by the Justice Department, to identify and vet people who were worthy recipients of clemency, both for reasons having to do with the
shifting enforcement of laws or the shifting sort of perception of laws or shifting laws related to sentencing. The biggest group of the Obama pardons
were for nonviolent drug offenses that were sort of shifting in the way that we like looked at the laws and enforced laws and the laws themselves
shifted.
And so, this system was set up to kind of filter out, to identify big groups of people at the direction of the president and determine within
those groups who were the ones who were sort of most worthy and least likely to recidivate. And so, that's the process.
And Clinton, you know, he mostly followed the process, but he also pardoned some people who were just political supporters or their relatives or
political supporters. He even pardoned people who had paid his relatives. So, that's not too dissimilar from what we're talking about with Trump.
Now, the difference is that Clinton also mostly adhered to that Justice Department sort of funnel system, that most of his clemency grants were
issued through that. An overwhelming majority of Obamas were, almost none of Trump's are.
MARTIN: So, it's a feature, not a bug is what you're saying?
VOGEL: Yes. That's a good way to put it.
MARTIN: So, you know, the White House has pushed back strongly on the idea that money or lobbyists are influencing these decisions. In response to
your reporting, the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt said, anyone spending money to lobby for pardons is foolishly wasting their money. And the
president doesn't even know who these so-called lobbyists are. And she says that the administration has a robust pardon review process and that
President Trump is the final decider.
Well, we know that the president's the final decider, but that is the way the system works. As we said, the pardon power is absolute. But how do you
square the rest of that, the rest of that, with the patterns that you've uncovered?
VOGEL: Yes. I mean, another difference, I would say, between both the traditional way that the clemency grants are sort of processed and
announced versus how Trump is doing, and frankly, even different than the way that the way that he's doing now is different from the way he was doing
his first term. During his first term, he did announce, even at the, during this sort of spree of pardons and commutations at the end of the term, the
White House would put out statements justifying almost every single one and saying, this person was supported by these people, and here's what they've
done in the community, and sort of making the case for it. Now, they don't do that at all.
So, you know, the White House saying that this is the result of a rigorous process, and, you know, these people are all deserving, and the, you know,
the lobbying has nothing to do with it. Well, they're basically asking us to take their word for it.
MARTIN: In the cases that you -- some of the cases that you've reported on, there were victims. There were victims who were expecting restitutions.
The court found that there were victims.
VOGEL: Yes. Well, actually, in the case of Joseph Schwartz, he did pay his restitution, one of the rare ones where he did fully up front, but there
are certainly many others that we found where they didn't pay the restitution. In fact, they were seeking the pardon because they were aware
of the deadlines for either reporting to prison, you know, aspects of their sentence, including reporting to prison, but also the restitution that they
wanted to avoid, and that restitution is wiped away. They no longer -- that's one of the elements of the sentence that is wiped away.
So, I'll give an example of one that we covered early in the term. It was a guy by the name of Walczak, Paul Walczak was his name. He got a pardon. His
family had been sort of moderate Republican donors in South Florida in that Trumpy scene, but -- and we learned and reported that the mother, his
mother, who at one point had been in business with him, had made a $1 million donation to the Trump-backed Super PAC called MAGA, Inc., which
entitled her to go to an intimate dinner with around 20 donors and President Trump, where she pleaded this case, and President Trump, and he
had already pleaded guilty, and he was waiting to report, and President Trump issued the pardon before he ever had to report.
So, he was spared from having to pay, I think it was like $4.4 million in restitution. So, you know, that $1 million, if that was, in fact, what got
her the audience that led to her having the successful pleading with her, that would have been a good investment.
MARTIN: In this case, would you say that there's a quid pro quo? I mean, in any of these cases, is it clear that there's a quid pro quo, or is it
mainly by inference?
[13:50:00]
VOGEL: That's a good question. I'm glad you brought it up, because I don't mean to suggest that, in that case, there was a smoking gun, where we had
the clear causal connection between the donation and the lobbying and the pardon. It's almost never.
I mean, I have not found a case where I could definitively prove that. You know, there's always sort of some plausible viability and some alternate,
you know, that we always go out of our way to capture the explanation from the White House that pushes back on that. And, you know, part of the reason
why we can't definitively answer those questions about what led to it is it really is still kind of a black box. It's an opaque thing.
The president is the ultimate decider, as Karoline Leavitt put in the quote to us, and there's not a whole lot of accountability, despite congressional
efforts to try to bring it. It is really an unfettered power and one of the most sweeping ones of the president that really no one can check him on it.
MARTIN: Before I let you go, is there one of these cases in particular really stands out to you?
VOGEL: Yes. I mean, the woman who got two clemency grants for two different crimes is one, but there's certainly others where people have
gone back. There was a guy, Eliyahu Weinstein, who, you know, perpetrated this great fraud that affected a lot of people and, you know, he went to
jail and he got a commutation by Trump. And then, you know, shortly thereafter, if you read the court filings by prosecutors, they allege that
he was back at another fraud using a different name and he's back in jail.
And so, you know, the reoffenders are the ones that I think really put this in the starkest relief and show why the system and these attempts, I mean,
again, it's an unfettered, it's an unchecked power by the president, but there was a system that was set up to try to make it easier and make it
more meritorious and it's being ignored. And I think when you see the reoffenders, that really brings that home.
MARTIN: Needless to say, as the diligent reporter you are, you reached out to many of the people who are directly involved in these cases, the
principals in some of these cases, the lawyers in some of these cases. Some declined to comment. Others said they didn't benefit from the
administration's actions. In some cases, there was no response at all.
I know we heard from the administration what they had to say, but what about some of these people who were involved in these cases?
VOGEL: Yes, and a lot of cases will get their allies or supporters or their lawyers saying, oh, no, this was justified because, you know, this
was an over-sentencing or there was sort of prosecutorial misconduct or, you know, all the different ways in which the justice system can be unfair.
And I don't dismiss any of those explanations. I think that's probably right.
And by the way, it's probably right in a lot of cases, but it's also probably right in a huge swath of cases of people who don't have money,
don't have connections and are waiting in line, sometimes filing the part of petition with the Justice Department through the normal process and
never hear back at all or get rejected out of hand.
And so, it's just the disparity in ability to access this presidential perk for a better word that I think is notable and is not always sort of taken
into account when you hear these explanations of why an individual did warrant clemency.
MARTIN: Kenneth Vogel, thanks so much for talking with us.
VOGEL: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, celebrating Hollywood's brightest stars at the Academy Awards, Paul Thomas Anderson's "One Battle After Another," won
big with six trophies, including Best Picture. Other winners include Joachim Trier's Norwegian family drama "Sentimental Value" for Best
International Feature Film. Now, in an interview last month, I asked Trier how he felt about this nomination.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOACHIM TRIER, DIRECTOR, "SENTIMENTAL VALUE": When I was a kid staying up late at night in Norway to watch the Academy Awards once in a while, you
would have Fellini, Bergman, you know, someone like that be nominated. And it made us or people from other places in the world kind of proud and
thinking, hey, they're taking them all into account. It's not just a little group in Hollywood.
And I think now the Academy has broadened out its membership and there are people from many places in the world and it's being reflected in the
nominations. And I think it makes for the better. It's now -- you know, films even from Norway are being considered and that makes it joyous. You
know, it's fun for all of us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And the win was the first ever for Norway. And amid all the One of the most fun but deadly serious films was called "Mr. Nobody Against
Putin." It's about a regular teacher in Russia taking on his president and his president's war in Ukraine. And when he accepted the Oscar for Best
Documentary, the American director, David Borenstein, had a message which would be sure to resonate beyond Russia.
[13:55:00]
This is what he said. "Mr. Nobody Against Putin" is about how you lose your country. And what we saw when working with this footage is that you lose it
through countless small little acts of complicity. When we act complicit, when a government murders people on the streets of our major cities, when
we don't say anything, when oligarchs take over the media and control how we can produce it and consume it, we all face a moral choice. But luckily,
even a nobody is more powerful than you think. And that is a great statement.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, 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
