Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA); Interview with Pakistani Army Former Chief of General Staff Muhammad Saeed; Interview with S&P Global Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 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. I think it's close to over,
yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think it's close to -- I mean, I view it as very close to over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But with the United States and Iran both blockading the Strait of Hormuz, Americans are feeling a pinch at the pump and presidential
approval ratings are sinking. I ask one-time loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene about Trump's base.
Then, Pakistan the peace broker? As Trump hints talks could resume, we examine the role of Islamabad with General Muhammad Saeed, close to
Pakistan's powerful leader.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL YERGIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, S&P GLOBAL: The implications are that we've seen it remains the largest disruption of world energy that's ever
occurred.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- what's the global impact of the blockade? Leading energy authority Daniel Yergin tells Walter Isaacson how China and Russia benefit.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Pakistan's top military official and de facto leader Field Marshal Asim
Munir is in Tehran, trying to bridge gaps between there and the United States. As President Trump signaled another round of talks to end the war
could come soon in Pakistan. While the world energy supply continues to be choked by both Iran and America's blockades on the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking to Fox News, Trump admitted Americans will suffer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, look, there's a hit because, you know, we go through it for whatever it is, six weeks. There's going to be a hit,
but it's going to recover, I think, fully. Somehow, they misquoted me. I think oil will be down to the levels it was. You know, they said I expect
oil to be high at the midterms. I don't expect that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Mixed messages then as Americans feel the pinch and the polls look less good for the president. Only 24 percent of all Americans think
the war has been worth it. Just over half of Republicans feel that way. That's according to The New York Times analysis of the latest Ipsos/Reuters
survey.
What's more, this is draining support from Trump's MAGA base. One of the most vocal in her disappointment is the former Congresswoman Marjorie
Taylor Greene. Just a year ago, she wore a baseball cap that read Trump was right about everything. Today, not so much from handling the Epstein files
to backtracking on his no more wars promise, not to mention the Jesus debate. Taylor Greene is now calling for the president's removal.
So, what does this mean for the America first movement? Well, Marjorie Taylor Greene is joining me now from Georgia. Welcome to the program.
FMR. REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Hi, thank you for having me on.
AMANPOUR: You know, I'm not sure how many of these international interviews you've done, because you do a lot in the United States. But it's
a measure of how much your position now is causing a huge amount of interest, both in the United States and around the world. And so, we're
glad to have you on.
You've been very critical of President Trump recently when he made that very apocalyptic threat to essentially wipe out and a whole civilization
will die tonight and will never be brought back. That's what he said about Iran. You responded 25th Amendment. Tell us what you what you meant.
GREENE: I was absolutely shocked and horrified that the president, the man that I supported and helped get elected, would call for an entire
civilization of people to be murdered. When he talks about a civilization, he's talking about every man, woman and child and the country of Iran to be
killed. And I think that is completely unacceptable for the president of the United States, for any leader of any country around the world to call
for an entire civilization to be killed.
Innocence, the innocent lives to be wiped out. And that really gave me grave concern for his mental capacity. And that's what the 25th Amendment
is for.
AMANPOUR: So, just to be clear, it's to -- you know, through Congress, through those official routes, it's to sort of remove a president if
there's they're deemed unfit to be able to carry out their duties. Do you believe that now?
[13:05:00]
GREENE: Yes, I think I really think that he his mental capacity needs to be examined. His rhetoric has been shocking to many Americans and people
around the world. This is a war that that many Americans, especially younger generations, who I side with most of the time, do not support. We
made campaign promises in 2024 to the American people, no more foreign wars, no more foreign regime change. And to put America as our focus, that
means the American people and our economy and our future, really. And however, we've seen a drastic change here.
I call this war an unprovoked war. And President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu engaged this war against Iran. There's not been a single bomb
fall on America. And yet, here we are spending nearly $2 billion a day. Yes, I do think that it should be discussed, although it's very unlikely
the 25th Amendment will be used.
AMANPOUR: And are you concerned? Like, you know, many people were immediately very offended and concerned, particularly many Christians
around the world when first of all, President Trump essentially attacked the pope, calling him weak on just about everything, and then somehow
presented himself in a Christ like image as the great healer with the halo and all sorts of, you know, depictions in light. And, you know, to those
who understand Christian, you know, imagery, it definitely looked like a deliberate image. How did you read it?
GREENE: I read it as blasphemy. That's exactly how I read it. It was President Trump presenting himself to be Jesus, presenting himself to
replace God. And that was extremely offensive to Christians and Catholics all over the world. And it is completely wrong.
And then even further, he tried to, you know, sweep it away saying that, you know, he thought he was representing himself as a doctor, which is
lying. And he didn't apologize, which he should have apologized. And it's just it's ridiculous, really. Absolutely ridiculous. And so, it is
blasphemy and it's wrong. And President Trump owes Christians an apology.
AMANPOUR: And he hasn't done that yet. And as you say, he says he doesn't owe anybody an apology. Here's Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of
Representatives, about this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: I talked with the president about it as soon as I saw it and told him that I don't think it was being
received in the same way he intended it. He agreed and he pulled it down. That was the right thing to do. He explained how he saw that. And I don't
think he thought it was sacrilegious at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Are you satisfied with Johnson's response there?
GREENE: No, I'm not, because Speaker Johnson constantly touts himself as a Christian and brags on that in the way he speaks of himself. I think he
should have said more. And I just think this is totally unacceptable. And we have to be clear eyed exactly what it is. President Trump is not Jesus.
He is not God. He's a man no different than any man here on Earth. And it's completely blasphemous for him to present himself that way.
And if he's not understanding why that was offensive to Christians, then I would call on the Christian leaders around him, such as Paula White,
Franklin Graham, Speaker Johnson, and others. They need to be doing a much better job explaining why that was offensive and why it's appropriate that
he apologize.
AMANPOUR: Now, as we've noted, you essentially have broken with Trump. And he has, I suppose, broken with you. He does a play on words with your name,
Marjorie Traitor Green, et cetera. Can you explain to me what is going on, do you think? Not necessarily. First, I want to ask you why you think Trump
is behaving this way, what he said about civilizational erasure in Iran, what he said about, you know, this Jesus depiction. What do you think is
going on?
GREENE: Thank you for bringing that up. Just to be clear, President Trump called me a traitor because I fought to release the Epstein files,
defending women who were raped at 14 and 16 years old. And I would not obey his demands of taking my name off that discharge petition. That's why he
calls me a traitor.
I'm not a traitor to the United States. I stand with women and stand with victims. I don't know what's going on, but I think that is the conversation
that needs to be had. As a matter of fact, I think it's an extremely important conversation. Why the President of the United States wants to
portray himself as God and why he would dare even use the words, wipe out an entire civilization. I think many people, not only in our country, want
to portray himself as God and why he would dare even use the words, wipe out an entire civilization.
[13:10:00]
I think many people, not only in our country, but all across the world are so deeply concerned and offended by that language, that it is the right
thing to do to be talking about it.
AMANPOUR: So, we didn't mention, but you also retired or resigned from Congress and you're not an active congresswoman right now. I've read, you
know, in doing a lot of reading for this interview, you know, a lot of people are trying to figure out, apart from what you say now and what
you've said, what is at the heart of your, gripe is the wrong way, but your disagreement with President Trump right now.
And one analyst or, you know, a political analyst said, you seem to have recognized that the president has broken faith with his own followers. Do
you think that you are seeing something bigger than just what we're talking about right now? Because you have been such a prominent member of the MAGA,
the first, you know, America first movement. Is there something bigger going on than just these -- you know, these quotes and these things that he
puts out in public?
GREENE: I'm not sure. I believe in accountability and that's why I'm so outspoken. Many people, especially in other countries, may not know my time
in Congress. I spent calling out Republicans just as frequently as I did Democrats. I believe it's incredibly important to follow through on the
promises that elected leaders make to the people that elect them. After all, that's who they work for, not special interests or anyone else.
But as far as President Trump is concerned, I'm not sure exactly what is going on with him, but I've been calling for people in his cabinet, the
administration and Republicans to engage in these conversations because this is extremely concerning. This is the president of the United States
who is waging an extremely concerning war in Iran that seems to be escalating. The United States is also, our ally is Israel. We are also
funding them with weapons as they declare war and wage war on Lebanon and have killed many innocent people in Gaza.
So, I, myself as an American, not just a former member of Congress, think it's important to speak out on this and call for accountability.
Accountability not for only the current direction that the president is going in, but also accountability to the promises he made the American
people in 2024.
AMANPOUR: Which were no foreign wars, America first, that's the kind of thing, right?
GREENE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GREENE: Yes, no more foreign wars, America first.
AMANPOUR: And also, I think on the Epstein files, didn't the president say or during the campaign that they were going to release all the evidence,
all the files?
GREENE: Yes, and that was talked about for years, not only by the president, but it was basically a blanket campaign promise for Republicans
overall. And so, that should have never been a fight that I had to have with President Trump. It should have been the easiest thing in the world,
but instead it was the biggest fight that led to him calling me a traitor and ultimately led to me resigning, refusing to serve under a president
that publicly pledged to destroy me. I thought that was incredibly unfair to my district.
Yes. No, these are the things that have many of us concerned and has caused a giant divide among the base of people that supported President Trump.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's the thing that I'm actually also very interested in because as you know better than I do, there was an election to fill your
seat and Clay Fuller was sworn in. He is obviously a Republican. He replaces you in your Georgia district, but he won the seat with a smaller
margin than either the president or you yourself did in 2024.
And I think I've heard you talk about your worry that this split and these, as you say, broken promises to Republicans and to the MAGA base is showing
up in a lack of turnout in what potentially might happen at the midterms. Is that a worry? Am I reading that right?
GREENE: Yes, it is. It's something I actually talked about in pretty much mid-2025. I saw this coming early and it's just kind of like when you hire
a company to renovate your kitchen, if they do a bad job, you're not going to hire them to renovate any other part of your house. That's just how it
works. That's just how people are.
And so, when I saw early on President Trump making changes from what he promised and Republicans just obeying whatever President Trump said instead
of saying, no, Mr. President, these are the things we need to be doing. I started calling it out early that Republicans are going to lose the
midterms.
[13:15:00]
But we've seen it in races all over the country that have been held in 2025 and now in 2026, where Democrats are surging and Republicans are losing or
either barely winning by much smaller margins like the special election in my district. This is a huge warning for the midterms.
And there was an event yesterday in Athens, Georgia for Turning Point USA, where Vice President J.D. Vance came to speak at the University of Georgia
in Athens. And there was barely -- I think there were somewhere between 300 to 500 people in a nearly 7,000-seat auditorium. This should be warning
signs for the Republican Party. And it's particularly concerning for my home state of Georgia that could easily flip blue if Republicans are still
so angry and furious at President Trump that they just don't turn out to vote.
AMANPOUR: So, look, I want to ask you a slightly deeper question because it's obviously no secret. And I said that you wore a hat at one point
saying Trump was right on everything. And, you know, you know that he's never been a beacon of moral principle. His evangelical Christian
supporters admitted that. They called him an unlikely vessel, yet chosen by God for a higher purpose, i.e., that it was somewhat transactional. We'll
support him and he will help us get our Christian principles enacted into law. And you know what happened with Roe versus Wade and the other.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, based on what you knew about Trump then, are you surprised that he violates Christian principles or even what you're
saying in terms of MAGA principles, America First principles now? Should you have known better?
GREENE: It's very hard to explain in just a short matter of minutes. So, I only knew President Trump while he was out of office. I didn't know him
during my first term as I wasn't a member of Congress then and I became a member of Congress in January of 2021. So, I campaigned for the president
and that was my relationship with him. It was after he came into office in 2025 where I started to see him differently, where he began to change and
began to support issues that he was against just before that, before he became president. So, that's been my personal experience.
Is he going back on what many Christians want to see happen? I would say so. And again, I can just only speak for myself.
AMANPOUR: And, you know, in terms of the opposition to the Iran war, you are not alone amongst MAGA. Very prominent influencers and media figures
such as Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones and Candace Owens, all quite controversial, as you know, have also been accused of supporting anti-
Semitic tropes or platforming anti-Semitic views.
So, is that an issue? Are you comfortable with the company that you keep, the anti-foreign intervention wing of the MAGA movement also being against
Israel? And I mean, what do we have just recently? So, we had Nick Fuentes who had been, you know, talked to by Tucker Carlson saying, my problem is
that, you know, Trump isn't Hitler enough. You know, I mean, I'm sure he was, you know, trying to make a different point. But --
GREENE: Yes, I don't answer for other people. What I can tell you, in my opinion, is it's not anti-Semitic to be against the secular government of
Israel and their wars. That's not anti-Semitism. That's being anti-war. I've got a strong history of being anti-war, not just the war on Iran or
against Israel's, basically genocide in Gaza and what they're doing in Lebanon now. I was also against U.S. funding of Ukraine and my voting
record shows that.
So, I think what you're talking about when you bring up Tucker and Candace and Alex Jones and others, we're speaking out just like many Americans are
that we're tired of the United States and our tax dollars having to fund these wars. And we're tired of seeing our military serve in these wars in
foreign countries because many of them are our friends and our family members and they come home forever changed with PTSD or in a flag-draped
coffin. And we're against that. That's not anti-Semitic or hateful towards any people group. That's literally saying that we're tired of America
fighting different countries' wars on their behalf. And that's what's happening in Iran.
AMANPOUR: Tell me something then finally, do you regret supporting Trump for president? And where do you think the movement and the country is
headed? And will you position yourself to try to take at least the Republican side back to what you believe to be the America first
principles?
[13:20:00]
GREENE: I don't regret what I campaigned on because nothing about me has changed and in 2024 when I helped President Trump get elected, he was
pretty clear on what we were campaigning on. What I don't support is the man that he's turning in to be. A man that is hell-bent on war and
destruction has forgotten about the American people that are struggling so much economically and has basically gotten incredibly focused on his
biggest donors and their top issues. That's what I'm against.
Going forward I'm looking past Donald Trump. I'm looking towards a future that is focused on my children's generation. They're all in their 20s and I
think that's the generation that we should be fighting for and that's the generation that's been largely failed. So, I will continue to be vocal
because we have to look towards the future and how to solve those problems for the American people and so that's where my focus lies.
AMANPOUR: Marjorie Taylor Greene, former congresswoman, thank you very much for being with us.
And stay with CNN because we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, despite no diplomatic breakthrough in the first round of talks between Iran and the United States in Pakistan, it did mark the
highest-level meeting between them since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And as we mentioned, another round of talks may happen. Pakistan's role as key
mediator is crucial. Retired General Muhammad Saeed was deputy to Field Marshal Asim Munir until 2023. And he's joining me now from Islamabad to
discuss the negotiations and his country's role. General Saeed, welcome to the to the program.
MUHAMMAD SAEED, FORMER CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF, PAKISTANI ARMY: Thank you, Christiane. Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Listen, thank you for being here. Field Marshal Munir has been in Iran and it's known that he's very front and center with trying to
get a ceasefire, an end of war. Can you tell me where you think the situation is right now? And will there be another round of talks?
SAEED: First of all, let me very briefly comment on what has Pakistan achieved thus far. Let me go briefly to example from the U.S. military
campaigns. At the end of Vietnam War, you know, U.S. started talking to the Vietnamese after the offensive in 1968 in Paris. And some result could then
be reached at in 1973.
In our neighborhood, the U.S. started communicating with Taliban's for negotiating them with them back in 2012. And first face-off in Doha was in
2014. And finally, there could be some agreement in 2021. And what has happened this time, on the morning of 7th, everybody was very nervous in
the region. And I think those were following the events globally as well.
It was being assumed that there's something big and worst going to happen in the early hours of 8th of April. And Pakistan mediated a ceasefire for
15 days. A ceasefire in a conflict through which every household in the entire world was being affected. Not only the nation states. And Pakistan
pulled it off.
[13:25:00]
And in next 72 hours, the rivals who have had this rivalry nurtured over half a century were sitting on the table and talking to each other. It's a
great achievement. And everybody in Pakistan is proud of our achievement.
Now, what is -- why is, you know, General Asim Munir now in Iran? You see, he's had an advantage which has not been discussed much. There are there --
we are now under global spotlight as mediators. But till 4th, 5th of April, many people didn't know what type of linkages, what type of personal
rapport across the region Field Marshal Asim has.
He took over as Director General of Military Intelligence back in 2016. Later, he was heading Inter-Services Intelligence, our external
intelligence agency. And then for four years, he has been the Army Chief. Pakistan's military diplomacy in our statecraft has had a unique position.
Why? Because in the region, military leadership traditionally, because of a number of reasons, has been very direct and relevant to many important
stakeholders across many states in the region.
You see, he's one man who was interacting at political level, at diplomatic level, at military level, at the level of intelligence communities in Saudi
Arabia, in Qatar, in Bahrain, in UAE, in Kuwait, in Iran, consistently since the last conflict of June 2025. And now, everybody in the world knows
the fondness of President Trump for Field Marshal.
So, he was one who had this huge asset of relevance to everybody who was -- who had an important stake and an important role to play in the management
of this conflict.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, no, listen, I mean, and that's been on, you know, global display over the last week or more. But what do you think is going
to happen next? Why is he in Tehran? What do you think the Americans are saying? Because Vice President Vance left saying that Iran chose not to
accept our terms. The Iranians fired back by saying, we do not capitulate and surrender. This has to be a negotiation. So, where do you think there
might be room for further negotiation in a second round?
SAEED: Right. In my personal opinion, the good thing which has happened so far is that the ceasefire is holding. And ceasefire's timeline is 21st of
April. So, there are days available. Despite the blockade now in place, there have not been returned to kinetic means the way there was a
possibility.
Now, everybody knows that there have been very clear positions taken on first event in Islamabad by American leaders, that there were agreement on
about 80 percent of the conditions set from both sides. And there had been very clear stance from the Iranian side. Yes, there was agreement on most
of the things. And there were sticking points about the status of Strait of Hormuz in future, about the uranium enriched beyond 60 percent, its
disposal, and the future of Iranian nuclear program. There was substance -- very, very meaningful discussion on those, but there was not any agreement.
Field Marshal is by nature a very relentless person. He doesn't give up easily. And I know why he's in Tehran. He would talk to them about the
military situation. He would talk to them about the consequences, the cost which is now attached to reversion to use of military instrument again. And
what could be an offer, on offer, if that is averted. And I'm very confident that he has some message from White House also with him.
If there were limits to which they were not ready to accept anything, so there might have been a possible renewed position for negotiations
communicated to Field Marshal. And he will be talking to them very passionately, very intensely. And we have great hopes. What we have heard
in many statements coming from Iran and U.S. that there is increasing chance of Islamabad too. There could be an event here. And if not in
Islamabad, elsewhere.
But there is a lot of hope. There are very clear expressions coming from both sides that there is likely to be another engagement at the same
level., minimum at the same level, which we witnessed in Islamabad.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's a good thing if talks are continuing. But you said some consequences around the world. The U.S. CENTCOM says that the
naval --
SAEED: Christiane, you're hearing me?
AMANPOUR: Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? All right. We're going to go to a break and we'll get the general back in a
moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: So, we fixed some technical issues. Let's bring back in retired General Muhammad Saeed from Islamabad. I was asking you, General, about the
effect of this blockade and the Strait of Hormuz issue. Now, the United States is also blockading, and the Iranians are too. And it's still having
a material impact on the export of critical energy. Does it hamper your effort?
And furthermore, you get more than 85 percent of your oil from Saudi Arabia, UAE, and it comes via the Strait of Hormuz. It's -- this hitting --
is this hitting your economy and how urgent is it for you as a nation to get this resolved?
SAEED: OK. Let me take the last part first. You see, in Pakistan, the government has done brilliantly in managing the effects of 40, 41, 42 days
conflict. It is one country in the region where you don't find long queues on gas stations. You don't find any evidence in any city of this country.
So, the supply chain has been managed very well.
Now, let me give you a military perspective of the blockade. I think anybody now who engages with the Iranians, the first observation, first
frustration they are going to express is that every time they were on the table, there were military moves being made on the ground. It happened in
June 25. It happened when Omani's were facilitating them talking on the nuclear issue at Geneva until 26, 27th of February. And while they were
sitting on a table in Islamabad, there were military moves underway for this blockade. Now, militarily, in the military strategy, what could it
lead to?
The strength to oppose this blockade is not compatible on the Iranian side. But don't forget their capacity for asymmetric war. Don't underestimate
their capacity for a war of attrition. If it endures without any opposition from Iranians, it would strengthen American bargaining position. It could
even lead to a sort of checkmate situation.
But God forbid, if you find Iranians attacking few vessels, there could be a sudden, a very dangerous and widespread escalation in the region because
we are hearing for last few days, intents from the countries in GCC who have been affected, that they might -- they are also considering use of
military instrument against Iran. So, this is a very dangerous and very precarious situation which could go anyway.
[13:35:00]
Now, if it does not go back to that kind of disruption through use of military means, then most critical question would be, who would be allowed
to pass through this blockade and who will not be? Now, everybody knows that major part of exports of oil for the Iranians will have to pass
through this blockade. And everybody knows that their main customer, whatever they move through this blockade, is China.
So, will this blockade be then preventing Chinese vessel moving both ways? And what kind of geopolitical and geostrategic consequences will that have?
So, it's a dangerous situation and could go either way. Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Do you -- you talk about China, and of course, there was a lot of conversation around the ceasefire that China played a very important
role also of getting Iran to accept this ceasefire. What can you tell us about that?
SAEED: The way it happened, everybody knows that China and Pakistan relationship is very strong. And everyone knows that through initial
communication, there was a clear intent from both sides for negotiating it. Pakistan very proactively took many important actors on board. Pakistani
leadership spoke to Chinese. They spoke to everyone in the region except Indians. And they also had conversation with the U.N. secretary general.
So, what was that? It was an effort to have a broad-based ownership, a broad-based stake for that exercise to reach a logical end.
And Chinese on those five points, which were taken there by our foreign minister, gave a statement which has a promise for a return of normalcy in
the region. Because fundamentally what they said was in those five points that whatever the issue, no matter what the complexity, we must have a
resolve to use diplomacy and other peaceful means to resolve those.
AMANPOUR: OK. So --
SAEED: And that has had a huge influence on staging the event in Islamabad.
AMANPOUR: And you know that there was a big kerfuffle over whether Lebanon, and a ceasefire in Lebanon was included. The Pakistani prime
minister said it was, Iran believed it was, and then there wasn't. So, can you tell us, was Lebanon included in this ceasefire?
SAEED: Yes, this was one of the -- as has been reported widely, this was one of the conditions given by Iranian delegation before their arrival
here. And they have been talking about it after the conversations also. But what became a sticking point, we clearly heard it from U.S. vice president.
He didn't list it down, that this became a sticking point. Neither the Iranians said it. So, even if it was a demand, you can't say that the
negotiations fell apart because of this.
AMANPOUR: Got it, got it. OK. Have another sip of your water while I ask you a different question, the last question. You know, one of the most
popular and well-known politicians in Pakistan, Imran Khan, as you know perfectly well, is in jail, in solitary confinement. He says it's
politically motivated. There seems to be some kind of major political standoff between him and General Asim Munir. Do you see that being
resolved? Is there a way that that can be resolved?
SAEED: Well, Christiane, I am here to give you my input on the strategic issues, on the military aspects of what is going on, on the role of
military diplomacy, what our intelligence community is doing. I often appear on national media also. I don't comment on the political issues.
That's not my area of expertise.
AMANPOUR: OK. Last question. We've only got 30 seconds. President Trump has said he wants a grand bargain, including reintegrating the Iranian
people into the global economy. Is that on the table?
SAEED: Yes. When this conflict is averted, when the ceasefire is strengthened, and we see it enduring, I think in the subsequent phases
there is a lot of space. Iran is a very important country in the region with a wealth of resources, a great civilization, people who have shown
tremendous resolve and a pain threshold which is commendable.
[13:40:00]
And I think if there are issues between Iran and all regional GCC countries, in first step if those get resolved, and then later the
integration with the international political system, economic system, financial system takes place, it would be something very important for the
Iranian people, for the region, for millions of people, everyone will stand to benefit from it.
AMANPOUR: All right. General Muhammad Saeed, thank you very much indeed for joining us from Islamabad.
Now, as we've heard, the United States and Iran are both choking off the Strait of Hormuz. As energy costs surge, our next guest is sounding the
alarm about the global economy and noting how Russia and China benefit. Daniel Yergin is vice president of S&P Global and a leading authority on
energy and economics. He tells Walter Isaacson what could lie ahead.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Dan Yergin, welcome back to the show.
DANIEL YERGIN, VICE CHAIRMAN, S&P GLOBAL: Thank you.
ISAACSON: So, we're now blockading the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's thinking of doing it in the Persian Gulf. What are the implications now for the oil
market?
YERGIN: The implications are that we've seen it remains the largest disruption of world energy that's ever occurred. It's hitting particularly
hard in Asia, where some countries are already rationing supplies, prices are going up, people are closing restaurants and stuff because they can't
get the fuel that they need for heating. So, that's where the biggest impact is. It's starting to be felt in Europe, and we're seeing that the
U.S. and the gasoline pumps.
But one particular area, Walter, is jet fuel, which is the Gulf of the Persian Gulf. Those countries were major sources of aviation fuel, and
that's going to affect travel.
ISAACSON: You said a big change is that the United States is now a net exporter of oil, net exporter of liquefied natural gas. Is there a silver
lining for the American economy here?
YERGIN: I think overall not. But I think that obviously prices go up temporarily. That benefits those sectors of the economy. But on the other
hand, you have higher gasoline prices and that hits particularly lower income people who have to travel some distance to work. So, it probably --
you know, if you did an economic analysis, you would say it probably kind of balances out. I think the big concern here is there was generally a
sense that there were a lot of inflationary pressures already building in the U.S. economy. And this adds to inflation here and it adds to inflation,
of course, around the world.
ISAACSON: What will this do for other energy sources like renewables?
YERGIN: I think we've seen a tick up in sales of electric vehicles in the United States. It's now up to about 7 percent of new car sales, a little
higher than it was before. But I think that, you know, the secret of energy security is diversification. And now, I think people are describing
renewables, wind and solar, less in terms of climate and more in terms of energy security. That's the case in Europe for sure.
And I know, you know, one project that was going to depend upon liquefied natural gas in Vietnam is now switched to solar. So, I think that
renewables definitely are going to benefit. And, you know, over 90 percent of the new electric generating capacity that was installed last year in the
world was wind and solar.
ISAACSON: And what about China? How does it affect them and what are they trying to -- how are they trying to influence this?
YERGIN: Well, I think that's one question of whether China is a big beneficiary. China depends upon the Gulf for about 44 percent or 45 percent
of its oil imports. And China, by the way, has replaced the United States. We -- the U.S. used to be the world's largest importer of oil. China is
today. 75 percent of its oil is imported and a big part of it from the Middle East. And China has been the major recipient of the sanctioned
Iranian oil.
So, China has its own economic challenges. I think China wants to portray itself as a stabilizer in the world in contrast to how they portray the
United States as unpredictable. They also benefit in that they are -- they're the country at the forefront of call it renewables. And in
particular, 80, 90 percent of the world's solar panels come from them. So, if people decide that they don't want to depend upon oil or gas, as you put
it, liquefied natural gas for electric generation and want to go solar, China benefits from that.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: You talk about petrodollars at times. And could this reduce the use of the U.S. dollar as the currency and maybe help China become the
currency?
YERGIN: Walter, that's a big question that even sort of goes beyond this current crisis, because the question has been now for a number of years,
will the dollar retain its primacy and its special prerogatives in the world in that basically world trade is priced in it? And there are two
countries who would like to really end that. One is Russia and the other is China. And then throw in Iran as well, countries with sanctions. The
Chinese want to push their currency, which doesn't have the same convertibility as the U.S.
But note that the IRGC, that Iran, has been saying that those tankers that they allow to go through the Strait of Hormuz, we now have a blockade and
things change day by day, would either be paid in cryptocurrency or in yuan, in the Chinese currency. So, I think, and the question about the
dollar, as I say, it's not just about this crisis, but the Chinese would like to displace the role of the dollar and in a sense displace the role of
the U.S., so central to global trade.
ISAACSON: Do you think China then will end up supporting Iran more if Iran is insisting that the Chinese currency be used?
YERGIN: Well, I think that the Chinese are no doubt very happy for that to happen and regard that as more than a badge of honor. I think they've had a
strong relationship with Iran. I think one question in all this diplomacy and all, will China, you know, in the background try and play a role to --
you know, to end this kind of -- this hostility.
ISAACSON: You say that China is one of the big winners in this at the moment, or beneficiaries. The other seems to be Vladimir Putin and Russia.
Are they benefiting from this situation?
YERGIN: Yes. I saw a clip of a Kremlin news conference where Vladimir Putin looks so smugly, self-confident, saying, you know, you can count on
Russia as a reliable supplier of oil and gas. He benefits from it if sanctions get lifted on Russian oil. He benefits in that their oil that
they do get out gets sold at higher prices. He benefits because this helps to fund his war. And it also raises questions whether if these shortages
persist, will sanctions -- the E.U. sanctions about not importing Russian energy, be tempered or pushed back. So, he's a beneficiary.
Now, what's happening, of course, the Ukrainians know that, and they've been lobbying missiles and drones at the Russian oil infrastructure to try
and impede the export of Russian oil and gas because they don't want Putin to make more money from it. But, you know, he could win the jackpot here.
ISAACSON: How will that affect the war in Ukraine?
YERGIN: Well, I think, first, it's taking attention away from the war in Ukraine. Secondly, weapons that might have gone to Ukraine are now going to
the Gulf. The other side of it, though, is that no country knows better how to fight drone warfare than Ukraine. No country has innovated more and done
it more rapidly than Ukraine. And there is President Zelenskyy in the Gulf countries making deals with Saudis and others to provide them with anti-
drone capabilities. So, you know, that's a positive.
But meanwhile, that war grinds on and the Russians have hardly gained any territory. It's going on longer than World War I. And Russia, Putin can't
stop himself. And you look at it and you say, what does he gain from this? He's severed his relations with the West and to a considerable degree made
Russia a client state and economic dependency of China. But that war grinds on.
ISAACSON: But if they lift, if the United States lifts different sanctions, especially Europe, the United States lifts sanctions on Russian
oil, doesn't that help his war in Ukraine?
YERGIN: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, because right now, he has to ship everything through his shadow fleet. And, you know, so, I mean, that's out
there. The U.S. had a waiver, but I think the waiver expires on Saturday. And we'll see whether those -- it continues to -- you know, to lift those
sanctions, but, you know, the world needs to make up the missing supplies.
[13:50:00]
So, that's where Putin is standing there. You know, he's in a much better position. And the other thing, he's in a better position, because people,
at least in the U.S., have sort of stopped focusing on the war in Ukraine. I think the Europeans still feel that Russia is waging a hybrid war against
them and have a very different attitude towards Russia right now than Washington does.
ISAACSON: Even if traffic resumes through the Strait of Hormuz and from the Persian Gulf, which may also be affected here, how is this situation
going to alter what you call the new energy map? Will it make structural changes?
YERGIN: I think so. I think that the world is, you know, the world's going to be different when this is over. How different depends on how it ends.
But I think that, first of all, they'll take months, even if it's not now, to unsnarl all this disruption of supply chains. It may take years to --
and, if not months, to repair some of the equipment. And it will be the sense of, well, what sense of security is there in the region? So, I think
a lot depends on how it ends, but more or less people didn't think it would happen.
And now, it's happened, and there'll be a rethink. And the critical question will be, does the Strait of Hormuz, does it function as a
international waterway, or does it function as an Iranian canal where they collect the tolls? And that's front and center right now.
But I can tell you that the Arab Gulf countries, for them, it would be unacceptable to have to depend upon permission from Iran, where the funding
that they pay for tolls goes to fund the Iranian IRGC, which is basically what the system that the Iranians have tried and want to impose.
ISAACSON: Do you think that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia will eventually work with the United States to make sure the Strait of Hormuz is
a free passageway?
YERGIN: Well, you know, if you look at their interests, the world's interests, Asia's interests, Europe's interests, you would say yes. And
it's so much in their interest, because otherwise they are dominated by Iran, ends up as a dominant power. Iran may have lost a lot of its weapons,
may have been pushed back its nuclear capability.
But they have at this point, at least, and things can change, Walter, you know, in a day or two. But at this point, they have won something very
important, control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is the most important maritime choke point in the world.
ISAACSON: A lot of people think of you as an energy expert. I think of you as a historian. What could have gone differently after August 1978 so that
the Iranian people, the Persian people, could have remained friendly with the United States?
YERGIN: Well, it would have been -- you know, there was the initial revolution, and you had a sort of broad coalition. And then the Zealots --
in effect, it was a second revolution. If there hadn't been that second revolution.
You know, history, as you know, Walter, because you write history so beautifully, is a lot of accidents and mistakes. And one thing leads to
another. If the Shah hadn't been admitted to the United States to be treated for his cancer, the Shah of Iran at Sloan Kettering in New York,
would world history have been different? Would there have been a different balance of power? Truly don't know.
But, you know, one thing, if you go back to 1978-'79, the Shah, you know, people criticized him. He was, no doubt, he was an autocrat. He had his
secret police, but nothing on the scale of brutality of this current regime over these many decades, shooting tens of thousands of people in the
streets.
But Iran was also poised to become a significant economic power. You know, their Iranian students were doing PhDs in engineering and science in the
U.S. and around the world. Iran might have been on a very different vector. And I've been thinking as this crisis has been unfolding, you know, to look
across the Persian Gulf, Iran could have been a modern major economic power, as we've seen the Arab Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia become.
But it went on a different course, and it's been a course that has repressed the people at great cost for the Iranian people. But it's also
what we've seen, and I think, Walter, this may be one of the surprises here, that maybe people didn't understand the extent and scale of the
Iranian arsenal of weapons. And at least from what we read, although much has been degraded, much of it still remains.
ISAACSON: Dan Yergin, thank you so much for joining us again.
YERGIN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, a 0.0008 percent chance a Frenchman beat those odds and won the raffle of a lifetime, taking home a Picasso worth more than a
million dollars for just a 100 euro raffle ticket. Software engineer Ali Hodara says he had nearly forgotten about the contest until he was called
during the draw and put on FaceTime for the crowd. Tete de femme is in Picasso's signature cubist style, and the money raised will go to
Alzheimer's research, a good cause indeed.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
