Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder; Interview with Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King III; Interview with Former Special Assistant to President Obama and Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy Founding Director Jason Bordoff. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 04, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. Tensions escalate as the U.S. and Iranian
militaries trade shots over the Strait of Hormuz. Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder joins us.
Then, the Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act. Reaction from civil rights activist Martin Luther King III.
Plus, energy expert Jason Bordoff shares with Walter Isaacson the potential global consequences of the Iran shock.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Tensions are rising in the Strait of Hormuz as the U.S. military says that it blew up six small Iranian boats after Iran launched multiple cruise
missiles, drones and small boats at U.S. Navy ships and at commercial ships being protected by the U.S. military. This is according to the head of U.S.
Central Command. U.S. Admiral Brad Cooper says that he strongly advised Iranian forces to steer clear of U.S. military assets. Meanwhile,
negotiations do not appear to be making much headway. Here's what President Trump said over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Again, they want to make a deal. They're decimated. They're having a hard time figuring out who their leader is.
They don't know who their leader is because their leader is gone, their leader that -- their former leader, Khamenei. But we'll see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Iran, for its part, disputes these claims. So, we start this week with the same level of uncertainty as we did last week, the conflict
now in its third month.
Ivo Daalder was the U.S. ambassador to NATO in the Obama administration. And he joins me now from Chicago. Ivo Daalder, welcome to the program. So,
let's just start with the breaking news, the UAE saying that it has intercepted three Iranian missiles and also issuing a statement saying that
they call this a dangerous escalation and that they reserve the right to retaliate.
Given the ceasefire being as shaky as it already is, do you see that at some point sooner rather than later, the United States or Israel once again
resuming kinetic action?
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, I think the possibility increased as a result of the events in the last few hours. Shooting
missiles towards the UAE, although intercepted and apparently no real casualties, is not something that the United States or Israel or the UAE,
for that matter, can let go unanswered.
And this is the difficulty that we find ourselves. We're in a stalemate in a ceasefire without any clear sign of how we should end it. Clearly, the
Iranians believe that they have the upper hand because they control access to and from the Strait of Hormuz, or at least they're trying to do that.
The president hasn't been willing to break that with military force.
And so, you see this situation in which people are starting to communicate not by negotiations but by shooting missiles and downing aircraft and going
after boats. That is a very dangerous situation, particularly when the communication between the United States and Iran is going through third
parties. The best thing to do is to sit down at the table, figure out how to move forward on this conflict in a way that satisfies as many sides as
possible.
GOLODRYGA: And thus far, with the revised 14-point plan that Iran returned to the negotiating table with, though we haven't had a formal response from
the United States or President Trump yet, it does appear to be dead on arrival, given the demands that Iran continues to make and not attempting
to have earnest conversations about its nuclear enrichment program. Now, at least, they continue to want to put that off for another time.
And it's coming after the weekend announced that he would be dedicating some 15,000 service members and over 100 aircraft to what he's calling
Project Freedom. That's helping to restore transit there among the vessels who are essentially stuck in the straits since the blockade has been
enacted.
[13:05:00]
The IRGC, as we know, has been continuing to threaten to strike, retaliate against American vessels there, American military warships as well. Do you
see this as the logical next step for the U.S. to be taking? We had General Wesley Clark on who said that this was, in fact, in his view, the right
step for the U.S. to be making now. Do you agree?
DAALDER: Well, I think this is a half measure. These are -- the measures that the president's put in place to say that -- to tell the ships that are
stuck in the Gulf to just take the transit. And they'll show you guide where there are no mines, and they may provide some air cover and maybe
even some naval cover.
But this is not an escorting mission. This is not a mission which says, you shoot at any one of us, we'll shoot at you in the way that we did back in
the 1980s. I mean, at some point, it is important to open up the Gulf. And you can either do that through negotiation or you can do it through
military force.
The negotiation doesn't seem to be working, and so escalating in order to try to help ships that are stuck to get out and, more importantly, to
restore the flow through an international waterway may be the best way to solve this question. But you do have to answer the question before you go
into this, how far do you want to take this?
Let's say that you try to escort these ships through. They do get attacked. Indeed, apparently, a UAE tanker was just attacked overnight, or our ships
get attacked, then you respond, and how far do you want to take this? We are in this pickle because, frankly, the military option is no more
attractive than the diplomatic option.
And that's why the president, every time he's confronted with the reality that the Iranians are saying no, not because they're divided or they don't
have leadership, as the president keeps on saying, but because they think they have the upper hand. The only way to deal with that is either through
negotiations that says, OK, we'll give you what you want, more or less, or escalating militarily. And we don't want them to escalate militarily.
The president doesn't want to escalate militarily because, as we saw in the six weeks of war, escalating military doesn't necessarily get you what you
want, whether it's the nuclear issue, whether it is opening up the strait, or whether it is a change of regime. And that is the fundamental strategic
dilemma that the United States finds itself in, having started a war without thinking through the consequences of what would happen.
GOLODRYGA: The president announced this Operation Freedom as sort of a goodwill gesture to what he says were a number of international countries
that have asked him to do just this, though President Macron made it explicitly clear today that France will not be participating, saying they
do not want to be dragged into a wider war.
If our close allies, if our NATO partners view this as a strategic trap, is there something that U.S. intelligence is saying perhaps that they're not?
DAALDER: Maybe. And if they do, then perhaps it would be a good idea to start consulting with allies rather than shouting at them through Truth
Social posts and what have you, and share that intelligence. If there is something and a strategy that the United States thinks it has to open up
the straits, that it can do so with minimal risk of escalation, then please do share that with the Europeans. They have the capability. They have the
forces. In fact, they have naval capabilities the United States doesn't have, including mine-clearing vessels, which the U.S., of course, withdrew
back last November, that are necessary to open up the Gulf.
But that requires the kind of cooperation that we used to have with our allies but no longer seem to have. The president is more interested in
blaming Europe for the problem that we're having and threatening either tariffs, as he did on Friday, or withdrawing troops, as he also did on
Friday, rather than finding a way to bring the Europeans along. And as long as that is the case, I don't see any country in Europe, whether it's the
French or the British or anyone else, getting involved in a situation which, frankly, the U.S. military hasn't figured out how to resolve itself.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, it is those European countries, one could argue, that are suffering even more than the United States is, given the rise in energy
prices stemming from this war, a war that they were consulted about, true, a war that they were surprised when it first launched February 28th. And
obviously, we've seen the rhetoric between President Trump and some of these leaders directed at these leaders and at NATO.
All of that aside, do they not stand to benefit at this point to help, at least with regards to opening up the strait and hopefully lowering energy
costs and thus taking away some of the leverage that Iran seems to believe it has?
[13:10:00]
DAALDER: Yes, they would stand to benefit if there was an easy way to open up the straits. But there isn't an easy way to open up the straits because
the Iranians still have the capacity to attack commercial and military vessels in large numbers. The problem is that the president of the United
States and the prime minister of Israel decided to go to war in the mistaken belief that they had all the cars, that our military capability
would devastate and destroy Iran's to the extent that it couldn't respond. Iran did respond. It closed the Strait of Hormuz.
Quite predictably, it still has a very large capacity of naval, these mosquito boats and other naval vessels and missiles and drones that it
could use to inflict damage on anyone who was trying to get through the strait without their direct agreement. And as long as that is the case, the
military option for opening up the strait is dangerous and risks further escalation. And the Europeans, not having been consulted, not having been
asked to be part of this from the very beginning, are saying, we're not going to risk involving ourselves in this situation until and unless we
know that it is safe to do so. And that is the dilemma that we have faced.
The reality is the president keeps on saying the Iranians don't have cards. They do have cards. They can close the Strait of Hormuz at a cost that they
are willing to bear. And frankly, no one else is willing to bear. That is the problem that we're facing.
GOLODRYGA: President Trump also, in the meantime, hitting Europe with a 25 percent tariff on cars while at the same time simultaneously demanding that
they do more to open up the Strait of Hormuz. Can the U.S. effectively wage a trade war or relaunch a trade war with its NATO allies while at the same
time trying to get them to work together to open up the strait and resolve the conflict?
DAALDER: It's a very Trumpian notion that the way you deal with allies is to try to beat them over the head as hard as they can so they will come
running towards you. And the last year and a half has taught, I think, most of our allies, unfortunately, that the better way to deal with the United
States under these circumstances is to say no and to stand up to the United States. That is what China has demonstrated. And as a result, the U.S.
relationship with China is not as bad as it is between the United States and its allies.
And so, I think the allies have learned that it is probably best most of the time just to ignore what the president is saying and to focus on what
they need to do themselves, which is to reduce dependence on the United States in the security sense, reduce dependence on the United States in an
economic sense, and if necessary, if pain is inflicted on them economically, to retaliate.
And the reality is that the European Union is still the largest trading partner of the United States. It is the largest investor in the United
States. And to the extent that the president of the United States is determined to damage that economic relationship, the Europeans are going to
suffer, but the Europeans have means to make Americans suffer as well.
Wouldn't it be better if we returned to the kind of policies we had before, where we worked together with our allies to squeeze those who we oppose,
including the Iranians, in terms of economic and diplomatic levers, including the Chinese on the questions of technological and other
competition that we're engaged in, rather than trying to beat them into submission so they could do our bidding? They're not going to do it. They
have decided after all this time that enough is enough. They're moving ahead. They're meeting today as we speak in Armenia to figure out ways to
reduce their dependence on the United States and to do more alone. That's not good for the United States. It's frankly not good for Europe, but
that's where we are, unfortunately.
GOLODRYGA: And it's clear the United States and this administration does not view NATO as a whole, and a number of these countries as so-called
model allies. The U.S. withdrawing, pulling some 5,000 troops from Germany. Most would agree that that came in response. That was the president and his
frustration with German Chancellor Merz accusing the U.S. of being humiliated by Tehran, and that was sort of his retribution.
And in addition to that, perhaps even more alarming for Germany and U.S. allies is the U.S. is walking back a 2024 agreement to deploy Tomahawk and
hypersonic missiles to Germany, creating what many would view as a major deterrence gap against Russia now closing. Can you just talk about how
Moscow is viewing this all?
DAALDER: Oh, I think Moscow is looking at this and just can't believe its luck. Listen, Vladimir Putin and the Russian army were on their ropes. They
were losing 35,000 to 40,000 troops on the front lines in Ukraine.
[13:15:00]
96 percent of the Russian casualties were being inflicted not by direct gunfire, but by drones and other autonomous vehicles. The economy was in a
deep tailspin, and all of a sudden, two things happened that changed that situation. Number one, oil prices rise. And of course, revenues for the
Russian oil sales means that the Russian coffers are being increased at $150 million a day. That is significant. And then secondly, the United
States and Europe are at loggerheads precisely in the way that the Russians and indeed the Soviet Union has long wanted.
The one thing that the Russians have wanted is the United States to leave Europe, and the United States is now doing exactly that by saying that it's
taking out its troops, it's not deploying its most advanced weaponry. In fact, it is telling the Europeans, including the so-called model allies,
whatever that means, that they're not going to be getting the weapons that they have purchased because, of course, the Iran War has depleted U.S.
stockpiles and the U.S. has to get those weapons before anybody else does.
So, the relationship is in deep trouble on the security side. We talked about the economic side. And that leaves Vladimir Putin looking out and
saying, wait a minute, what I see is a lesser U.S. commitment, a fact of withdrawal in some forms by the United States from Europe. That gives me
more options. It gives me more opportunities. Let me wait it out in Ukraine and maybe find another way to threaten security in Europe in another way,
because I don't have to worry as much as I used to about what the U.S. would do.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, given all of that, I would like to get you to comment to reporting from CNN and others that Putin, while maybe benefiting from
both the fracturing within NATO and the strait closing and thus the spike in oil prices, intelligence is showing that he's increasingly more isolated
than ever in bunkers due to paranoia over drone strikes from Ukraine. His domestic approval ratings are taking. Those independent, the very few
independent agencies that can still poll are showing that the numbers of Russians who are supporting him and this war continue to deteriorate.
So, how do you think that is going to impact his thinking as far as how he conducts this war against Ukraine? And given that internal paranoia, do you
think he's really focused as much about what's happening outside of his borders in Europe with the United States?
DAALDER: Yes, I think he's focused on the Ukraine war and I think his paranoia will likely make him double down rather than to give in. He has
bet an awful lot on success in this Ukrainian war. He's lost over 1.3 million people, either dead or severely wounded. He has changed the entire
economy from a consumer economy to a war economy. He has asked a lot from the people of Russia in order to support this war. So, he's going to double
down. I fear escalation at this point more than de-escalation.
GOLODRYGA: Escalation from who?
DAALDER: From the Russians. I mean, they have other means, as we know, including, of course, nuclear weapons. We had threats of nuclear weapons a
few years ago, back in October of 2022. I think the more the pressure is on him, the more isolated he feels, the more he may well double down. I worry
that he may not find -- and is looking for a face-saving way out.
This is the time when the president of the United States, rather than conducting a war that seems to really not be moving in the right direction,
can tell Vladimir Putin, maybe it's time, rather than thinking about escalation, it's time for you to find a resolution. Let's get to the table.
Let's find a way to end this war that at least achieves something for you, while at the same time ensuring Ukraine's security. This is a time for real
diplomatic engagement. I don't see that happening by the president of the United States. I don't think the people he has sent are capable of doing
so.
But we are in a fraud moment, where it seems to me the Russians are increasingly seeing the Ukrainians taking the advantage and the initiative,
and they're faced with the choice, do I give in and give up what I have suffered for so greatly, or do I find a way out to escalate, knowing
Vladimir Putin, the latter, I think, is unfortunately more likely than the former.
GOLODRYGA: Ivo Daalder, we'll have to end it there. Thank you so much for the time. Really appreciate it.
DAALDER: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: American democracy activists are grappling with a historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week slashed yet another key
part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
It was more than 60 years ago when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill designed to prohibit racial discrimination in voting. Senator Raphael
Warnock says that the Supreme Court ruling tarnishes the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who was instrumental in pushing Congress to pass the
landmark law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): We've heard from the Supreme Court. I'm waiting to hear from my colleagues in the Congress, quite frankly. Many of
them will line up come January heaping praises on Martin Luther King Jr. We'll let the word go forth that you cannot remember Martin Luther King Jr.
while sitting silently as his legacy is being dismembered. Now, is the time to speak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: With me now is the civil rights leader's son, Martin Luther King III, a civil rights activist in his own right. Welcome back to the
program from Atlanta. Really appreciate you joining us today to discuss such an important subject matter and so consequential.
We know Justice Elena Kagan's dissent argued that the majority has essentially, quote, "eviscerated the Voting Rights Act." You've gone a step
forward calling it a moral indictment. Why do you feel this decision is a retreat from voting justice?
MARTIN LUTHER KING III, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Well, I think that historically, we went to the court and the court expanded rights. But when
you limit rights and you also act as if there's still no discrimination and in fact, the result of what you have done will potentially close the door
for a number of congresspersons, particularly the Black Caucus. Perhaps also it impacts not blacks -- not just the black community, but the brown
community and all of the community. I mean, I think we always need to be creating opportunities for more people to vote, not suppressing that right
and suppressing a part of the population.
And so, when you talk about what is morally right, the courts did that back in 19 -- well, actually, I should say Congress did it in 1965 with the
passage. But the courts allowed it for a number of years, but the job was not complete. There may be a day when it is complete, but it's just not at
this point.
GOLODRYGA: This case involved Louisiana specifically. And so, for our viewers there, for voters in Louisiana who are already in casting ballots,
we should note in the primary that has now been suspended. What does this mean for their representation in 2026?
KING III: Well, it could mean that they have no representation. They really are not represented. I mean, it's unconscionable that in the middle
of an election process, it's even one thing to say, OK, we're going to phase this in. And, you know, for some years down or next election cycle,
because so many voters will be uninformed, will not know what is going on and that they are being disenfranchised. They will feel it and they will
know it.
[13:25:00]
But it's really just unconscionable that people are being diminished. This is -- it's -- almost, it's unheard of, but in this particular climate, it
seems like it's all right. And the solution, of course, is to stay engaged, to stay on the battlefield, to get registered early and make sure that your
vote counts. But the fact of the matter is if you don't really know what's going to happen, how do you do that?
And so, the system has got to be corrected, but people have to stay involved. I mean, this government is supposed to be for the people, not for
some people. Not -- it's like, as opposed to people electing officials, officials are deciding who they want to retain them in power. That's just
wrong.
GOLODRYGA: Your father in 1957 made a speech called "Give Us the Ballot."
KING III: "Give Us the Ballot."
GOLODRYGA: And in it he said this, so long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote, I do not possess myself. I cannot
live as a democratic citizen observing the laws I have helped to enact. How much of his life's work in Selma was just undone by this court's decision?
KING III: Well, again, I think a significant amount of the work is either discounted or attempted to be abolished. I mean, you know, history is very
important to understand, and there are some in office today who are trying to eliminate and abolish the history of all people, because when you know
the history, you don't repeat the mistakes of the past. But if you don't know, you operate like a blind person. And so, this is a part of attempting
to diminish.
I actually believe that people are going to rise up. My hope is in young people. Our daughter is 18 years old, and she's just turning 18. She and a
whole group of her peers, in fact, she was born right before President Obama was elected. And so, for eight years, they saw government work. All
of those young people now will have an opportunity who were born in that same year, in 2008, will have an opportunity to vote for the first time and
engage.
And we're going to see, I think, something different, but we have to keep fighting. I mean, as I said, we can't give up. We can't give out. We can't
give in. We have to continue to move forward. There's a bill in Congress right now that Congress refuses to pass, which John Lewis authored before
he died. And that would have given everybody that right in a way where everyone could be -- could participate in a not encumbered way.
And so, today, when you are gerrymandering in -- you know, all of -- many states are talking about just changing this whole process because of a
terrible Supreme Court decision, in my judgment. That's going to haunt us at some point if we don't find a way to course correct, just like so many
other things that we may be doing in this nation. We must make a course correction. And the first thing is to stay engaged.
GOLODRYGA: Given the opportunities that you've just laid out that your daughter and her generation have, I think that that's what Justice Alito is
using to claim that he's just updating the framework for a country that has changed dramatically since 1965. So, he's essentially saying that
discrimination is no longer really an issue today and that protections of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are no longer needed. Explain to our
viewers why he's wrong and what he may not be seeing that many minority voters are.
KING III: Well, I think that, again, all you got to do is say that over half or almost half, potentially, of the Congressional Black Caucus would
be gone. They've been representing folks incrementally. And every year there's been progress made in terms of more congresspersons, not just black
Congresspeople, but Latino and Hispanic congresspersons, persons from every walk of life being elected. So, what he seems to be saying is racism
doesn't exist anymore.
And I wish that was the case. I honestly do wish. My dad talked about the day when this could happen, but we just have not achieved that yet. And I
think that voters need to understand everything shouldn't have to be about color, but we do have to create the concept of a colorblind society. But
that's just not real yet. I mean, when you look at the fact that 300 plus million African-American women have been abolished from jobs in the federal
government, I mean, there's others who've been abolished also.
[13:30:00]
But I'm just saying that the significant fact, the most qualified of those in the African-American community, black women, 300,000 gone. And there's
no justification as to why. We don't see the government operating any more efficiently. In fact, we see us spending more and more money on death and
destruction. It's proposed that we spend at least $25 billion on the Iran War.
And my only point would be this, if we're going to spend that much money on death and destruction, we ought to at least demand that we spend the equal
or same or even more amount on life and the concept of creating and saving lives, not just on death and destruction.
GOLODRYGA: And by requiring proof of intent rather than just effect, that's one of the reasons why Justice Kagan has warned that Section 2 is
now basically a dead letter in her words. So, in practice, how quickly will we see minority voting power diluted, especially in the South?
KING III: Well, if all of the gerrymandering that is being proposed now in states like Florida, in states like Tennessee, in states like the few
several others, if that happens, in all the southern states, this is a lot of the African-American population is moving back to the South. So, you're
moving back to the South and you're disenfranchised on day one of elections if all of what is being done goes into effect. So, you're talking about an
immediate impact, not next year, not two years from now, but immediately. And so, again, that's why engagement is so important.
And it's very confusing. I don't even understand how you're going to explain to people with all of this in this short period of time while
elections are going on right now. It's almost like you can't, if a car is broken, you can't fix it while you're driving. So, the election is going on
and you're changing the system. To me, that generally would be illegal. And yet, it seems that some are making it legal.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, Politico says now redistricting just went nuclear after this decision. We know that this was initially the Republicans under
President Trump who was pushing for it in Texas. Now, obviously, we saw it taken up in California, Virginia. Now, you've got Florida also engaging in
this as well, as states like Louisiana and Florida are redrawing the map as we speak.
Do you think that this just takes away any, when you talk about trying to re-engage younger generations to get them involved, do you think that this
just takes away a path for fairness and bipartisanship, non-partisanship in terms of who they're voting for and how they vote?
KING III: Well, I definitely think it certainly does that. It really, this is a hole in terms of what democracy is supposed to be about. I mean,
that's why dad in 1957 in May delivered, "Give us the Ballot" speech. We can do so much if we're able to be engaged in the system. When you
dramatically change the system and make it even harder for people to vote, to find their polling places, I mean, new places will have to be
established. It's a number of things.
And this just should not be. America is better than what it has done, what it did when it decimated the Voting Rights Act. It started in 2013, of
course, so they've been chipping away at it for a number of years. And finally, it almost is watered down to nothing. That has got to change. And
we've got to find a way to expand the opportunity for people to participate.
GOLODRYGA: And now, there's just concern that this is a race really to the bottom. I mean, even Democrats who are reluctant to do this are saying,
well, we don't have any other choice. If Republicans started this, we have to follow suit, fight fire with fire. And that ultimately leaves the voters
who are on the losing end.
I want to close by asking about how Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, what he said in response to this ruling as he was speaking at a
press conference for members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Let's listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER: Today's decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against
the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of
choice. But we're not here to step back. We're here to fight back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: How do you feel about his language there, calling the Supreme Court majority illegitimate?
[13:35:00]
KING III: Well, I would not say -- I will say there are probably a lot of people who feel that way. I mean, if we went back in history and during
President Obama's tenure, there were -- there was an entire year left. And the leadership of Mitch McConnell would not allow. At that time, it was
Merrick Garland later on who became attorney general. Him to be seated would not even allow a hearing to happen. So, is that democracy? You know,
you kind of change the rules when you want to accomplish something you want to accomplish. So, from that perspective, there is -- it just feel like
there's not legitimacy because the court represents certainly who they represent and they are allowed to do that.
You know, I would only encourage the court to engage. One of the things that goes even further is, you know, the courts are supposed to be a
provision for checks and balances. And we need to ask the question, are the courts doing their jobs to provide checks accountability? And some -- many
would say no. And I would almost have to agree with that. The court has got to do a better job.
I mean, some have even talked about expanding the court. And that probably is where we are. I think I think the leader, Leader Jeffries, also talked
about expanding the court.
GOLODRYGA: Would you support that?
KING III: That ain't going to happen right now. I think that's something we need to strongly consider, particularly if a court is not going to fully
engage in doing what the court should always do.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Martin Luther King III, thank you so much for the time. I can't help but look at that beautiful portrait of your mother there
over your left shoulder. So, I've been listening to you and looking at her and just thinking about how much she and your father and you continue to do
on this very important issue and speaking truth to power. Really appreciate the time. Thank you.
KING III: Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, as we've mentioned, the U.S. military is attempting to guide ships out of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's blockade of this crucial
waterway has been wreaking havoc in many countries with oil facing what our next guest calls the largest supply disruption we've ever seen in history.
In his recent foreign affairs article, energy expert Jason Bordoff details how governments are reassessing their reliance on global energy markets and
why the biggest impacts of this crisis haven't quite hit America yet. He joins Walter Isaacson in this discussion.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Jason Bordoff, welcome to the show.
JASON BORDOFF, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY: Thank you.
So, good to be with you.
ISAACSON: You know, two decades ago, the United States imported, I think, 60 percent of its oil and natural gas. Now, we're the world's biggest
producer. We're an exporter. Has that helped cushion the blow of this Iran and the Strait of Hormuz closure?
BORDOFF: It has. And, you know, a bit more than, to be honest, I had anticipated at the start of this. Of course, oil is still a global
commodity. And whether you're an importer or an exporter, if there's a disruption halfway around the world, global prices will go up and consume.
The price of the pump is set by the global price and consumers will feel that pain. And that's what's happened so far. Gasoline has gone from below
$3 to, you know, well over $4 at this point.
[13:40:00]
But there have been a few factors that have insulated the U.S. more than would have been the case, say, when I served in the White House 12, 13
years ago, and we were trying to figure out how to take Iranian oil off the market to impose economic pressure on Iran because of its nuclear program.
And we were really concerned about what it would do to the U.S. economy. First, the impact on the macro economy is smaller when increased consumer
spending flows to domestic producers and shareholders rather than abroad.
There has been this really interesting dynamic with the time lag before the U.S. really feels the same pain the rest of the world does. The physical
shortages of taking off up to 15 million barrels a day of global supply with the Strait of Hormuz closed. You really saw physical shortages in
Southeast Asia, people shortening work weeks, airlines having trouble refueling. Eventually, that pain, kind of with the time lag to move cargo
ships around the world, makes its way to the U.S., but it's taken two or three months. And so, we had a little bit of a head start where we were
feeling pain, but not as bad as the rest of the world.
ISAACSON: Well, let me drill down, so to speak, on that time lag. When's it going to hit us more in the United States?
BORDOFF: It's coming. And, you know, oil prices already have kind of soared back to some of the highest levels we've seen since this crisis
started, around $110, $115 a barrel. Gasoline prices are going to keep going up because it is a global market. And, you know, at some point,
there's dozens of tankers from Asia headed to the United States ready to load up U.S. crude if we can. And the price in the U.S. is going to have to
rise high enough to keep those here and meet domestic demand.
So, it is a global market, but we have seen an interesting disconnect where the physical price of oil started to be pretty disconnected from the so-
called traded price that you tend to see on your screen. Usually, they're the same. But it was -- we didn't see that disconnect in the U.S. We saw it
in Europe and we saw it in Asia.
But if you keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, I don't know if it's two weeks, three weeks or six weeks, but we are headed to much higher oil
prices because eventually, if you have 15 million barrels a day of supply off the market, prices have to rise high enough to destroy 15 million
barrels a day of global demand. And that's a really high price.
ISAACSON: Well -- wait, wait, wait. Why is it that the market hasn't priced this in? I mean, you look at future prices, you're talking about
only $100, $110 a barrel for domestic oil here.
BORDOFF: Yes, I think there's a few answers to that. That futures price you're talking about, the sort of price of Brent or WTI that people tend to
see as the headline oil price, that's technically a one-month futures contract. So, it's kind of what people think the price will be, not at this
very moment to buy a barrel of crude, but say a month from now. And I think what we've seen the market doing, and part of this is Trump's own rhetoric,
is betting that this is going to be over soon.
And you've seen the administration sort of set time lags. It'll be over in two or three weeks or six weeks. We're past all of those deadlines, to be
clear, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. But I think generally people have been betting this will be over sooner rather than later.
And then we had some cushions built in. We released a lot of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Inventories globally were quite high, so we've
been drawing those inventories down. But there's only so long. We were even taking -- we eased sanctions on Iran and Russian oil that was floating in
tankers on the water. You can argue about whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, but we had some buffers in the system, but those buffers recede
pretty quickly.
ISAACSON: Well, I have a counterintuitive question, then, even if you look at the futures for, say, September. Why is oil price so low?
BORDOFF: You know, before this conflict started, we had low -- relatively low oil prices, $60, $70 a barrel, and estimates were that the oil
production in 2026 would exceed global demand for oil by 2, 3 to 4 million barrels a day. Estimates varied, but there was a broad consensus. We were
going to produce more oil than the world was going to consume, and that was weighing on prices.
So, that was the reality before this all started, and we struck -- shut the Strait of Hormuz. If the Strait were to open tomorrow, and within a few
weeks or a month or two, you get that supply back online, we're back to that scenario where we were before.
So, again, people are betting that if this ends relatively soon -- and there's not yet been significant physical damage to the oil infrastructure
in the region that would take years to repair, so people think it could come back online, you know, relatively quickly, and then we're back to that
oversupplied situation.
ISAACSON: You say if it ends in two or three weeks, things go back to normal, it happens relatively soon. How long does the closure of the Strait
of Hormuz have to last before we get to something that's really bad and hard to reverse?
BORDOFF: It's hard to know exactly, and oil markets tend not to move in a linear fashion. People kind of, in a trading sense and a physical sense,
react in step changes.
[13:45:00]
But I think in the next one to two months at most, if you continue to see 14, 15 million barrels a day of global supply off the market, prices are
going to just continue to march upward, because there is no policy tool in the policy toolkit to deal with oil supply disruptions large enough to cope
with a supply loss this large. It's by far the largest supply disruption we've ever seen in history, even back to the Arab oil embargo.
ISAACSON: So, it's the largest disruption we've ever seen in history, and yet in some ways it hasn't affected the economy of the United States. Are
we more insulated than, say, Asia?
BORDOFF: I think we are. We're not immune, to be sure, but I think we are more insulated than parts of the world that are very heavy oil importers,
where those physical shortages show up more. There's also a dynamic with natural gas, where the price of natural gas in the U.S. is almost totally
disconnected. It's below $3 here, and it's gone to $15 or $20 in Europe and Asia.
There are some other buffers there, too, and I think that's important to acknowledge. Say, in China, China has a strategic oil reserve of more than
a billion barrels, and the U.S. has been selling our strategic reserve off both sides of the aisle, in my view, foolishly, I think out of a sense that
the shale revolution gives us newfound security.
And China has been, for energy security reasons, not just environmental or climate reasons, trying to reduce oil imports for decades by electrifying
more of its economy. Half of the new cars sold in China are electric, because they don't want to be dependent on global oil imports.
If you're in Southeast Asia and some lower-middle-income countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam, the pain is particularly acute
right now in those places, much more so than we're feeling here.
ISAACSON: Why is jet fuel so expensive, especially in Europe now?
BORDOFF: Yes. It's the nature of the refining system and where they import from and the way refineries are optimized. And when you refine a barrel of
oil, you get different products from it. Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, other things, and certain crudes, like everyone's talking about middle
distillates now, certain types of crude produce more of some than others.
So, as the type of oil that tends to come out of the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted, it's caused disruptions in the products that are produced
when you refine a barrel of oil, and those are manifesting themselves more with some products than others. So, as you said, more with jet fuel than,
say, with gasoline and more in certain regions than others, because we should remember the Gulf was not only the Strait of Hormuz. We say 20
million barrels a day went through it. That was about 15 million barrels a day of crude, but 5 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products.
So, there were refineries in the Gulf that couldn't get their jet fuel, their diesel out, and people were seeing shortages.
ISAACSON: Why is it that the stock market had the best month, you know, in a long time? April was the best month in memory. It's hit record highs.
Shouldn't this be affecting the U.S. economy?
BORDOFF: Well, it has affected inflation levels and has been somewhat of a drag, but as I said, I think the market generally, and other guests you
guys have had on recently have commented on this, have a sense that this is a short-lived crisis. This will be over relatively soon on relative basis.
We are pretty better off than some other parts of the world.
So, I think it's kind of a timing question, and then you have some other parts that are a little more immune from global shocks like this. The A.I.
boom is driving the U.S. economy. China's economic growth forecast has been revised downward. Still not catastrophic, but revised downward, partly
because they depend a lot on exports and is concerned about, for manufacturing, kind of what the global economic impact of this is going to
look like on demand.
ISAACSON: For a long time, we've talked about energy independence in the United States, sort of a phrase, and you've written this piece in Foreign
Affairs with Meghan O'Sullivan, and you, I think, say that's not a goal we should be chasing or even a concept that that's very useful. Explain why.
BORDOFF: Yes, it's a goal. Obviously, presidents for decades have talked about energy independence, and it depends how you define the term
independence. The idea that the U.S. has gone from a huge importer to a large exporter has certainly helped the U.S. economy, helped from the
geopolitical standpoint I just talked about.
But what Meghan and I wrote in Foreign Affairs was that, I think, the lesson from the 1970s energy crises that many took was that more
integration, interconnection, and global cooperation increases, not decreases, energy security. After the Arab oil embargo, we created the
International Energy Agency, so consuming oil countries could have diplomacy and cooperation when there were crises. We created strategic
stockpiles that we collectively managed and shared to work together to put out in case of an emergency.
[13:50:00]
We created an interconnected -- integrated global oil market. So, what I talked about before, if there's a supply disruption, a tsunami hits Japan
or a hurricane hits the U.S. Gulf Coast, a global market gives you security because you can access supplies from other places. That didn't exist really
in the 1970s when oil was sold in long-term contracts between buyer and seller.
I think in the world of geopolitical competition, fragmentation, the deteriorating world order that Mark Carney spoke eloquently about at Davos
and so many others have, countries increasingly view interconnection as a source of risk, not a source of strength. And we sort of warn about the
downsides of that view.
It is certainly the case that countries want to produce more at home. There's good arguments for that. But if you try to disconnect, take an
approach that looks like autarky, as we called it, there's a lot of downsides to that, happy to talk more about.
ISAACSON: Well, tell me those downsides, because I'm looking around and thinking we're lucky. Strait of Hormuz closes, yet we have huge amounts of
natural gas. We have our own oil. We're not that dependent on the ships coming through that strait.
BORDOFF: We're not, but we're still exposed to a global market. And as I described a moment ago, I think, you know, with natural gas, it's a bit
different. But for oil, the benefit we have, in addition to more economic activity, when prices go up, there are winners, there are losers, not just
losers. But we kind of -- it's a timing question. We have like a head start, as we talked about before, maybe two to three months before we're
feeling the pain the rest of the world does. But in a global oil market, we're going to feel that pain eventually, which is why one of the things
you asked why the U.S. is better off today. It's not just because we're producing more, it's because we're using less as a share of our economy.
Since the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. economy has increased fourfold, and oil demand has barely gone up. So, when an oil shock has, we feel it less,
it has less of an impact. So, trying to have more electrification, as China did, of our use less oil through energy efficiency, through
electrification, that also makes us more resilient. And then the thing to say, I think, more than anything else is, there's a cost to self-
sufficiency.
If you're worried about solar panels and batteries from China, and there might be good reasons to worry about some of those things, and you want to
make everything at home, you want to mine all your critical minerals, process all your lithium, you can do that. It's probably more expensive,
and that's going to be true for lots of other parts of the energy system.
So, the question is what insurance premium society is willing to pay in a world that is increasingly seeing geopolitical risks and concerns. But if
you really try to wall yourself off and make everything at home, that probably undermines your relationships and diplomatic alliances globally,
but it also can be very, very expensive.
ISAACSON: You say that it hasn't fully affected the world economy yet, but oil shocks generally lead to global recessions at some point. And correct
me if I'm wrong. Tell me, do you think we may be set up for a global recession, even though the stock market keeps going up?
BORDOFF: You know, there are probably macroeconomists who'd have a more firmly held view on that. I'll say from an energy standpoint, you're right.
There's a long history. Economist James Hamilton and others have documented how most major oil shocks have fed into recessions. But there are a number
of buffers in place now that are stronger than we have seen before, including the fact, as I said, that the global economy is far less oil-
intensive now than it was in the past.
You have this massive new source of supply in shale, growing 9 million barrels a day over the last decade or so, which is just an unprecedented
increase in supply that helped to cushion the world. That's part of the reason we were a bit oversupplied, as I said before. So, I think you're
going to see a very -- we're already seeing quite an adverse economic impact in certain regions.
One of the things that's different today is in the past, when I said before, oil prices have to rise high enough to make people use less, to
destroy demand, that pain today, that demand destruction is being seen first and foremost in middle- and lower-income countries, because that's
where the growth in oil demand has been most pronounced the last 10 or 20 years is these emerging markets. So, I think that's where you're going to
see the worst economic effects.
ISAACSON: Jason Bordoff, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
BORDOFF: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, some sweet dreams. In a country that works some of the longest hours in the developed world, hundreds of South Koreans turned
up at a Seoul park this weekend to do something many of them barely get to do, sleep. It was the city's third annual power nap contest, and the entry
requirements were simple, come tired and with a full belly. Officials walked between the contestants checking heart rates to make sure the sleep
was real, because in this game snoozing is not losing. One competitor came with a unique dress for success strategy.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YOO MI-YEON, POWER NAP CONTEST PARTICIPANT (through translator): I usually don't sleep well. I came dressed as one, hoping to borrow a little of their
magic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I love that. The koala game plan just wasn't enough. However, the winner beating out the exhausted office workers and sleep deprived
students was a man in his 80s. He didn't just win the trophy. He put the competition to bed. An award goes -- should go out to our creative writers
who put that together as well. I love this story.
That does it for now. Thank you so much for watching. 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. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
