Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Foreign Policy VP and Brookings Institution Director Suzanne Maloney; Interview with Northern Ireland Journalist and Former Irish Senator Mairia Cahill; Interview with The New Yorker Staff Writer Heidi Blake; Interview with Shell U.S. President Colette Hirstius. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired June 10, 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]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened last night showed that Iran's armed forces do not hesitate in defending the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: As President Trump says, Iran will pay the price for taking too long to negotiate, Tehran threatens to respond with strength and power.
Former State Department advisor Suzanne Maloney looks at where this may be headed.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We are united in calling for calm and determined to restore order, support the police and all those on the
front line.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- anti-immigrant violence flares in Belfast, after a Sudanese native is charged in a horrific knife attack. Could tension boil over
across Britain?
And journalist Heidi Blake investigates what she calls Andrew Tate's empire of abuse, revealing how the online influencer became the defining figure of
the manosphere.
Then later --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLETTE HIRSTIUS, PRESIDENT, SHELL U.S.: The Strait needs to be open. There needs to be a degree of security where we can move the products out
of the Strait.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- Walter Isaacson speaks to Shell Oil President Colette Hirstius about the oil supply choke point in the Strait of Hormuz.
And welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
There was a sharp change of tone on Iran in the Oval Office today after days of claiming to be very close to a final deal. President Trump said
this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: So, we'll see what happens. But we hit him hard yesterday and we're going to hit him again hard today in case you miss
it, in case you don't turn on your television set. And we'll see what happens with the deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: Now, early this morning, Iran launched retaliatory strikes on American bases in the region after the U.S. military struck strategic
locations near the Strait of Hormuz, which were themselves a response to Iran's downing of a U.S. Army helicopter earlier this week. And that came
after -- shortly after Iran and Israel exchanged fire over the weekend.
So, here we are. After weeks of stalled diplomacy, could the tit-for-tat attacks escalate into renewed fighting? Here to discuss, Suzanne Maloney is
a leading expert on Iran and the Persian Gulf policy at the Brookings Institution and has advised State Department policymakers in both
Democratic and Republican administrations. Suzanne, a very warm welcome to the program as we try and parse just the latest developments.
We just articulated, right, that, you know, Iran shot down a U.S. helicopter. The U.S. struck Iranian air defenses near the Persian Gulf.
Iran retaliated with drones and missiles. Targets in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait. And now, Tehran actually says it's reviewing whether talks can
continue. A Qatari delegation, we must say, has landed in Tehran to try and salvage negotiations. Where do you see where we are right now? Are we close
to the ceasefire collapsing entirely? And what would that mean?
SUZANNE MALONEY, FOREIGN POLICY VP AND DIRECTOR, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Thanks so much for having me. I don't think we're yet at a point where we
can say the ceasefire can't be continued. I do think it's going to be a very messy and probably prolonged ceasefire, as both sides believe that
they can use force to try to assert their own advantage at the negotiating table. They believe that by escalating that they will persuade the other
party to come more quickly to consensus around the terms that they want.
And so, I think the Iranians were very deliberate in shooting down the Apache. They understood that it would provoke a new cycle of violence. They
also believe, and I think they're probably accurate in this belief, that President Trump really wants and needs an end to the war and that Iran has
the upper hand at this moment.
NEWTON: It's a stunning thing you just said. We say it as if we expected this to happen on the first day that this was launched, but here we are. I
want to point out that according to CNN's fact-checking, Trump has said 38 times that a deal is close, yet his tone did sharpen just in the last
little while, threatening that Iran, in his words, will pay the price and that he will hit Iran hard.
[13:05:00]
Do you think that's a negotiating tactic from Trump, or do you think he will escalate, because he's showing genuine frustration about the
diplomatic track just really collapsing?
MALONEY: Well, I think we are in a spiral of escalation, and I expect that the United States will take an even more severe action than was taken
yesterday. They did hit supplies of drinking water yesterday, and that is a kind of civilizational issue, echoing some of the rhetoric that the
president has invoked previously. And he seems to believe that by hitting civilian infrastructure, he might cow the Iranian regime into capitulating.
I think what we've seen over the course of this entire war is that the Iranians really want escalation dominance. They believe that they can
continue to up the ante and that the president ultimately does not want to revert to a full-fledged war, nor does he want to take the steps that would
be necessary to reopen the Strait of Hormuz militarily. That would require hundreds of thousands of troops and significant ground presence within
Iranian territory. And I don't think that's a war that anyone in the United States is prepared to contemplate right now.
NEWTON: Yes, but what you're describing is the world's largest and strongest military in a bind. I mean, look, Iran didn't respond when
Israel's strikes were confined to southern Lebanon. But when Israel hit Beirut, Tehran struck back, as we saw. It appeared to be signaling that
it's a red line now, and it will no longer stop at its own borders. I mean, I want to point out, as well, what happened at the Kuwaiti airport was
extreme, and one person was killed.
So, its leaders are now indicating that they're ready to take greater risks here. Sadiq Larijani, the chairman of Iran's powerful expediency council,
which advises Iran's supreme leader, said this. Iran's attack in defense of Lebanon was not merely a military response. It was the former -- formal
declaration of a strategic doctrine. If any component of the Axis of Resistance is attacked, the response will extend beyond geographical
borders and will alter the regional balance of power.
So, the Axis of Resistance, Suzanne, it's back, right? Iran empowered. What does this tell you about any deterrence posture that the U.S. and Israel
were certain, told us, would come out of this war?
MALONEY: Yes, I think that, you know, in many respects, our regional deterrence has been eroded as a result of this war. You know, prior to the
beginning of the war, I think the general assessment was that Hezbollah, as well as other Iranian proxies, had been very heavily degraded, especially
by Israeli actions over the course of the past several years, and that Iran really wasn't the threat that it previously posed across the region to
neighboring states through those proxies.
And now, what we see is, yes, the proxies have been eroded, but they're bouncing back. And the Iranians are now determined to establish a kind of
new strategic posture in the region in which they attack other countries to defend those proxies. It used to operate in the reverse, and that is not
actually an improvement in the broader strategic calculus of the Iranian regime. It is not an improvement in, you know, the balance of power or the
prospects of stability across the Middle East.
And so, you know, we have an Iran that feels empowered, that is prepared to act to demonstrate that it is -- you know, that it is a force across the
region.
NEWTON: And given that it wants to be this force across the region, do you believe it means that the extremists in Iran, obviously the Revolutionary
Guard themselves, are actually getting what they want out of this?
MALONEY: Oh, yes. The balance of power within the Islamic Republic has absolutely shifted in favor of the military, and particularly those
components of the military within the Revolutionary Guard, who were major forces along the proxy wars that Iran fought in Iraq and in Syria and
elsewhere within the region.
They really want to be on the offensive. They, you know, are not perhaps as ideological as the clerics, who are still very much in control of the
regime. But they are also, I think, determined to present Iran as the strategic hegemon across the Middle East.
NEWTON: You know, Iran blockaded the Strait of Hormuz. It struck U.S. bases. It attacked Gulf neighbors. It forced Trump to call Netanyahu twice
to stand down. I mean, sometimes I don't know who President Trump is negotiating and on whose behalf, because he seems to be doing a very good
job on behalf of Iran. It seems, though, that the Iranian leadership has concluded that aggression works for them.
[13:10:00]
Has Tehran essentially cracked the code on how to play this conflict? And what leverage does Washington actually have left? Suzanne, I want to point
out that in March, you were the one who said way back then that this conflict would not end quickly.
MALONEY: Yes, unfortunately, I think that that's still the case. We may be close to the components of a deal that would be viable. But I think the
Iranians will continue to use force to assert their advantage, and the United States will feel compelled to respond.
And so, we're likely to see more cycles of violence like this, even if we make it to the memorandum of understanding that appears to be under
discussion by both sides. I think you're right that the Iranians just believe that force is an asset for them. And they also think that the
timeline is on their side.
You know, there will be time pressure for the Iranians as well. They are suffering from an American blockade. I think their resilience is probably
greater than that of the International Community, in part because the blockade started long after the Iranians had closed the Strait of Hormuz,
and we are beginning to run up against a physical crunch in oil and natural gas supplies that would have been typically flowing out of the Gulf very
soon this summer.
NEWTON: Suzanne, I don't have a lot of time left, but what would be the tipping point within Iran? Because obviously their economy is also
suffering as well.
MALONEY: I think that they want a deal as well, and some of their escalation may be designed to try to drive Trump to a better set of terms
from their side. And so, I think we have to be careful not to play into the trap that they're trying to set for the president. And we have to be
focused on trying to get a deal that opens the Strait of Hormuz as quickly as possible and sets the conditions for successful negotiations around
Iran's nuclear program.
NEWTON: Suzanne Maloney, we will leave it there for now. Grateful for your insights.
MALONEY: Thank you.
NEWTON: All right. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEWTON: Now, a wave of anti-immigrant violence swept through Belfast, Northern Ireland overnight after a Sudanese man was charged in a brutal
knife attack. Mass protesters set upon houses and cars and forced several families with young children to flee their homes. The violence kicked off
after police said they charged the 30-year-old suspect with attempted murder for a stabbing that was filmed by a bystander.
Now, anti-immigrant accounts on social media seized on the video, with many calling for further protests. Police said extra officers would be on the
streets in the coming hours as local and national leaders call for calm.
Now, this violence comes at a time of heightened racial tension right across the U.K. in a city rife with painful memories of sectarian violence.
Mairia Cahill is a journalist and former Irish senator, and she joins us now. Mairia, a warm welcome to the program.
As you know, you have said candidly in the last few hours that this has been soul destroying for you and the community. The horrific details of
this crime and the aftermath and how it all unfolded hour by hour seem to be pivotal to understanding how this escalated. How do you think this
resulted in the horrifying scenes in Belfast with families and, as I said, young children having to be rescued from burning buildings?
MAIRIA CAHILL, NORTHERN IRELAND JOURNALIST AND FORMER IRISH SENATOR: Yes, Paula, thank you. And I think the pictures, if anybody is looking at them,
just show how despicable the events of the last number of nights have been, first of all, starting with the original attack, which was horrifying to
watch.
[13:15:00]
That individual is now in custody. And so, the criminal justice process will take its course in relation to that.
And so, we then see or saw an influx of misinformation on social media and the absence of the facts being known until the next morning. And so, in
that period overnight, there was a huge number of people who would be associated, I suppose, with the far right fueling further hatred. And lots
of those people didn't even come from Northern Ireland. They probably have never set foot in Belfast. And so, that whipped people up, I suppose, in
the frenzy.
But we have had a rise of what we would term racial hate crimes here. The PSNI released figures today that show that up until March 2026, there were
2,367 incidents which could be attributed to being racially motivated, which were reported to police. And so, it is on the rise.
We do have a legacy of conflict here. We have a still community segregated on the basis of religion. We have huge concrete walls which separate them.
And so, we should know better than other people based on the color of their skin. And I think that the pictures are wholly depressing. It's not an
image that we want to send out of Belfast. But unfortunately, it is the reality. And we need to try to tackle that.
Watching masked men raiding up streets, putting children out of their homes, burning homes with children and people still in them. The police
having to rescue children as young as two months old. I can tell you that today in a lot of schools across Belfast, for example, little children
whose skin happens to be a different color than mine were afraid to even go into school today. And their parents were afraid to send them because they
weren't sure whether they were going to get there safely and get home safely. That's totally despicable and it needs to stop.
NEWTON: It certainly would leave you with a sense of despair. I can see how you say that it's soul destroying. I do want to note that the reaction
from the victim's family here was notable. They said in a statement that they condemned the violence and said in part, and I'm quoting them now, "We
have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country."
And yet, I also want to quote a U.K. lawmaker, Claire Hanna, who says, and I'm quoting her now, "What you're seeing is a race-based pogrom." You've
already articulated that you share her concerns. I mean, what are your fears after what you witnessed in the last couple of days?
CAHILL: Well, I think those fears really are articulated best by the people who have been put out of their homes. You know, I think that's the
first thing. But what I can articulate is my anger, I suppose, at what has happened from people who live here. As I say, they should know better than
the other people based on difference because we spent the last 30 years doing that here. And simply people have now -- some people have moved on to
a different target.
The vast majority of people here welcome anybody coming from outside the country who's going to make a positive contribution to society. You know,
they make up a huge bulk of our health service, for example, wouldn't exist. The NHS wouldn't exist here without people coming from other
countries and taking up jobs there. And they keep our infrastructure going. They contribute to the economy, their own businesses. And so, really, that
should be welcomed in terms of diversifying society here.
But we do have a small element of people who are whipped up by people on the internet. And I have to single out Elon Musk here, who shared the
protests information the night before. You know, I don't know whether Elon Musk has ever come to Belfast. If he has, it was never being reported on, I
suppose. But he would be better trying to contribute positively to society here.
We have a lot of children who live in poverty. We have people who live in underprivileged areas, the type of areas that you're seeing the trouble now
breaking out in. Educational achievement and attainment is not what it should be. And if Elon Musk really wanted to positively contribute, he
could get together with a number of CEOs and look at what they could do in terms of that. I can see the pictures playing out on your screen at the
minute. See those young people standing around on the street. Wouldn't it be much better to provide a positive future for them than to whip up
invective and hatred on the internet and boost algorithms which allow other people to spread misinformation?
People who don't live in this country, you know, we're spreading information of things which actually didn't happen and heighten intention.
And what happens then is you have young people who are out. We also have a history of rioting here, unfortunately. And so, there are a number of
elements to it. We have the young people who go out.
Look, colloquially, we refer to it as recreational rioting. They're looking to hang on to older people because it is a bit of excitement for them,
unfortunately. But we also have older people who should know better and take those children home.
[13:20:00]
I mean, there were reports in the media today of a father, for example, lifting his young child, no more than seven years of age, onto his
shoulders to see a picture of a burning house, or to see a burning house in front of him, like it was some sort of fairground attraction. You know,
that is just absolutely horrific.
And so, our politicians really need to lead from the front now, step into that space, do away with the misinformation. For example, asylum seekers,
which have been, and that phrase has been bandied about over the last number of days, make up 0.1 percent of the population here. So, just over
2,000 people. A hazard a guess that across America, they'd be looking at these riots and saying that was a totally disproportionate and horrifying
response to this one isolated incident last --
NEWTON: Given what you articulated about the disinformation in social media, I mean, we heard this from lawmakers in Westminster as well, and
they're asking Prime Minister Starmer for accountability. I mean, I'm quoting right now, they say that "extremists who exploit that grief and
anger to spread hatred and violence, aided and abetted by social media barons," and they point to Elon Musk as well. And they point to divisive
algorithms, but they are looking for action from the Starmer government. Do you believe there is action here that can be taken?
CAHILL: I've been advocating for -- and well before Elon Musk took over X, by the way, when social media companies were first getting off, because
when I first became a politician, and possibly even before that, when I waived anonymity as a rape victim, I was on the rough end, if you like, of
a huge deluge of social media abuse.
And so, I think their legislators worldwide actually need to take cognizance of this and clamp down on people being able to say whatever they
like on the internet just because they like the sounds of their own voice and punching down on vulnerable people is not the way to go.
And so, really, I think those platforms should be held accountable on a number of fronts. They should be held accountable for libelous information
published online, for misinformation published online, and for information which leads to violent acts published online.
You know, that isn't to excuse the people on the ground in Belfast, by the way, but it is to try to eradicate some of the difficulty and problem that
we are having, which is leading to some of those people going out straight. But really, you know, people are responsible for their own physical
actions. They should go home, stay at home, and make sure their children are at home where they are safe. And they should stop targeting other
people simply because they have a different color skin to them.
NEWTON: Mairia, before I let you go, you make a very salient point that all of us should keep in mind. And as you articulated, that Belfast is
still segregated along religious lines. I mean, look, some, as you point out, have contempt for the other. Is there collateral damage, do you think,
to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement here? Again, understanding the history of Belfast and Northern Ireland?
CAHILL: Look, first of all, the Good Friday Agreement brought a lot of positivity to the North or Northern Ireland, whichever terminology you like
to use. But it has also, peace has come dropping slow, to use that famous phrase, for an awful lot of people, and particularly for people that we see
who are completely disenfranchised with politics and apathetic about it.
These are the people who don't go and vote because they don't believe that their politicians will deliver for them. They're the people who are angry
because they can't get access to housing, because they're not great in terms of being able to get sustainable employment, because the figures
borne out show that some of them are second and third generation unemployed. Again, it's no excuse for committing a crime.
But it explains somewhat the divisions that we still have in society and the ignorance that is still festering and bubbling onto the surface. And
also, we still have children who are being targeted by paramilitaries here. That's something which doesn't really make headlines in the way in which
the Good Friday Agreement did.
And so, we really need a collective input here. We need to be able to sustain society. We need economic input. I note that your previous item was
on the war in Iran. Ordinary people here are being affected by that. Our cost of oil, for example, which is what most people heat their homes with
here, has gone up through the roof because of Trump's actions in Iran.
You know, we have a huge difficulty with the cost of living north and south. It has a knock-on effect. Britain and Brexit has had a huge effect
on this as well. And that allows bad faith actors to step into that space and exploit people to do things that they want them to do. They fire the
snowballs for them. We then end up mopping up the mess because we're dealing with young men, particularly children actually, looking at facing
criminal records as a result. And it's really not good.
NEWTON: Mairia Cahill, we do need to leave it there, but we so appreciate your perspective from Belfast today. Appreciate it.
[13:25:00]
Now, we go to the Tate brothers. Andrew and Tristan are among the most recognizable figures in the alt-right manosphere. The self-proclaimed
misogynist influencers amassed a huge following, peddling content about male dominance online and on social media.
Now, in recent years, they've faced legal investigations, including charges of rape, human trafficking, and more charges that they deny. Now, a
comprehensive report in The New Yorker investigates what writer Heidi Blake calls "Andrew Tate's Empire of Abuse." Blake plumbed through reams of
private messages and sealed court records detailing violent and disturbing allegations.
Now, before I'm joined by Heidi, a warning, this conversation will contain descriptions of sexual violence, which may be difficult to hear.
Heidi Blake, I want to welcome you to the program. Thanks for being here.
HEIDI BLAKE, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: Thank you so much for having me.
NEWTON: You know, in reading this investigation and just reading the details, I literally almost became physically ill just from reading it. And
then I had to think about what the victims went through in terms of what they went through when this was going on and then having to recount it not
just to you, but to authorities as well.
And you point out this is really -- when it comes to Andrew Tate, you've documented it now, right? There are allegations of grooming, coercion,
rape, trafficking, all kinds of abuse, and so much of it out there for anyone to see in plain sight.
You know, this is ultimately a story about Andrew Tate, or is it really the institutions that have failed to stop him? Because as I said, I was floored
by everything you uncovered.
BLAKE: Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I think in a lot of ways, this is a story about impunity and about how the Tate brothers have managed
to, you know, after spending so many years systematically exploiting women and bragging about the way in which they've systematically exploited women
to their many followers, are now managing to evade justice for those actions, and to leverage their political connections, particularly on the
right wing in America, to get away with it.
And that was partly what -- excuse me, that was partly what prompted me to begin investigating this was that, you know, last year in February, shortly
after Donald Trump's re-election, Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate were freed from all travel restrictions in Romania, where they faced very serious rape
and human trafficking charges, and were allowed to travel the world freely, and since then have been proclaiming their innocence and declaring that the
case against them is totally defunct and going nowhere. And that happened after the U.S. applied pressure on Romania, and the prosecutors lifted
those restrictions under a significant amount of pressure from the U.S.
And so, I really wanted to see what had the brothers done, and to dig as much as I possibly could into the evidence that I could find to document
their actions over the past 10 years, and to try to give that context to people who are just hearing the brothers constantly declaring that there's
no evidence at all.
NEWTON: And yet, you point out that the Hertfordshire investigation in the U.K. is just one of many disturbing parts here. In 2014 and 2015, think
about how long ago that was, three women, Hannah Price, Maya Navarro and Amelia Walker, they went to British police alleging rape and strangulation
by Andrew Tate. He was arrested, but then ultimately the case collapsed. Prosecutors declined charges again in 2019.
You know, where do you see it if police and prosecutors had properly investigated those early allegations, understanding where we are then as
well in the MeToo development? Is it possible here that Andrew Tate never becomes the global figure that he is now?
BLAKE: Yes, I think that's a really important question. I think there's a strong case to make that if those three women had been taken seriously and
properly listened to a decade ago, that Andrew Tate could have faced justice, could have been held accountable, and that perhaps other women
would not have suffered in the way that they have in the years since then.
And it is shocking the way in which that investigation was handled. You know, you had three women who all went to the police and made very similar
allegations that they had been assaulted, raped, strangled by Andrew Tate, and that investigation was left to gather dust for four years. Almost
nothing was done about it. The police left Andrew Tate's phone lying around the station and didn't download it properly, which meant important evidence
became effectively unusable.
And meanwhile, Andrew Tate, by his own admission, skipped the country and moved to Romania, a jurisdiction where he himself has said he is freer to
continue behaving towards women in the way that he wishes to behave without facing any action from the authorities.
And so, yes, that is a really shocking example of the way that a failure to take rape allegations seriously by the police can have very far-reaching
consequences.
[13:30:00]
NEWTON: In fact, he says it loudly and proudly just in the last few days, Andrew Tate was sitting on a golf course just outside of Moscow, I point
out, giving an interview in which, he dismissed Romanian prosecutors and compared Romania's justice system to Zambia's and argued that if he had
actually hurt anyone, he wouldn't be a free man today. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW TATE, SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER: The Romanian state has the same level of judicial integrity as Zambia, so anything they say we can take
with a large pinch of salt. Do I know women? Yes, I'm a full-grown man. Do I know men? Of course. Do I know people? Yes, I'm a famous man. I know
people. But if I had ever hurt anybody, especially with how hard they've tried to put me in jail, I wouldn't be sitting here right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: What strikes you about that?
BLAKE: Well, I think what strikes me about that is that Andrew Tate has been saying publicly for years that he moved to Romania specifically
because it is a more lenient jurisdiction when it comes to crimes against women. And, you know, he's openly said Romania is a corrupt country and I
can use that corruption to my own advantage. And that's why I want to be here. He's declared for years that he's above the law in Romania.
I think it took him very much by surprise when the Romanian authorities did bring this human trafficking case against him. But now, of course, he is
turning that argument on its head and saying it's a corrupt country and shouldn't be taken seriously.
The fact is that there's a rape and human trafficking investigation into both the Tate brothers in the United Kingdom as well. They are wanted on 21
combined counts of rape and human trafficking in Britain. And they are not being extradited at the moment from Romania because the Romanian court has
ruled they can't be until the Romanian prosecution has run its course.
Now, I obtained private messages in which the Tate brothers said to each other and to their advisers that they were effectively being protected by
Romania from having to go and face justice in Britain. And so, I think Andrew Tate sort of plays the system the way it suits him at any given
time. But I think they're a very, very serious allegation for him to answer in multiple jurisdictions.
NEWTON: What you're saying, though, is so shocking because despite all the documented evidence, the investigations, and you say there are still these
allegations out there, these investigations out there, he's still broadcasting. We just saw him, right? He's still traveling. He's still
growing his audience.
And I want to point out he is still making money from the likes of Apple and YouTube. You know, what does that tell you about power and impunity
online here?
BLAKE: Yes, it's extraordinary to me that they that brothers are allowed to continue traveling, continue expanding their reach, continue making
money, given the gravity of the allegations against them. That was a big part of why I wanted to dig into this investigation in the first place to
understand how that could be.
I think they have very assiduously courted a number of powerful allies on the right, in particular Elon Musk, who is someone who has come out and
declared the case against them bogus and said that, you know, they're the targets of some sort of liberal smear campaign to distract from actual sex
trafficking.
And, you know, there are other major allies as well. Donald Trump Jr. is another person, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, all of these very prominent
figures on the right in America have come out to defend the brothers and to defend their right to continue broadcasting and saying whatever they like.
But, you know, when I met Andrew Tate at a cigar lounge in Bucharest this spring, he said to me something which has become quite a familiar argument
of his, which is, you know, if I'm a human trafficker, show me a victim, why are there no victims speaking out?
Well, I went out and spoke to more than a dozen women who, you know, say that they -- or who are alleged victims of the Tate brothers. I gathered
accounts from many more victims in the form of witness statements and other documentation. There are a lot of women who feel that they were very
seriously victimized by these two men. And they -- you know, they kind of come up with any number of different arguments to try to bat those charges
away. But the fact remains, the evidence against them is voluminous. And, you know, they have a lot to answer for.
NEWTON: So, Heidi, you just mentioned you did sit down with him. I mean, why did you decide to sit down with him? And what most surprised you about
your encounter?
BLAKE: Well, I thought it was really important to try to understand Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate, his brother, and understand where they're coming
from and their psychology, and also to give them a fair chance to genuinely tell me their side of this. I really wanted to hear them out.
And I spent a huge amount of time with Tristan in particular, who did give me a lot of his time, both on the phone and in person, and about an hour
with Andrew talking to him about all of this. And what really struck me in the meeting with Andrew was that he lied very brazenly about the nature of
his webcam operation. You know, not only did he tell me that he's not a misogynist and has never said anything that designed to denigrate women,
which is plainly untrue, if you look at his many online pronouncements over many years.
He also said to me that his webcam business had been closed for 10 years at the point that he was raided by Romanian police, which is demonstrably
totally untrue. That's actually -- you know, before it even was established. He's saying it was closed before it even began.
[13:35:00]
So, you know, I was struck that he could look me straight in the eye and tell me these bare-faced lies. And I think you see that happening, you
know, in the interview clip that you just played.
NEWTON: And so, in sitting down with him, though, did you come to understand why he has had such an influence in the manosphere globally?
BLAKE: I think that he is quite adept at sort of donning a different skin suit, depending on who he's talking to. So, in the conversation with me, he
was careful to be respectful of women and to say that he's not a misogynist. And, you know, he was a very different character than the
character you see online.
I think I got a better understanding of the way in which he has built such an enormous audience online from kind of studying his methodology over the
years. And I think there was a really crucial moment in 2022 when he devised a really ingenious way of expanding his global following, which was
to establish something called Hustlers University, which was an online school that purported to teach modern wealth creation methods, but which
actually functioned as a sort of gigantic content factory for Andrew Tate, because it had this affiliate marketing program in which members could earn
commissions by clipping up Andrew Tate's videos and reposting them.
And so, suddenly he had thousands and thousands of fan accounts churning out his content day in, day out, and pumping it into algorithms that are
primed to amplify misogynistic and extreme ideas. And so, that summer of 2022, Andrew Tate's content exploded. It was viewed more than 12 billion
times on TikTok alone that summer. And he just became this global force. And that happened to coincide pretty closely with the human trafficking
investigation. He was arrested at the end of that year.
NEWTON: Right.
BLAKE: And so, I think that kind of fed into why there were so many, there were so many figures on the right who were prepared to stand up and say
that he was being targeted by political smear campaign.
NEWTON: Heidi, we only have about a minute left. And in that time, could you really put the focus for us on the women, the victims that you have
met? Because they have been harassed, threatened, discredited. Do they have a hope that the Tates will finally be accountable?
BLAKE: Well, I think there are a lot of women who showed an extraordinary amount of courage in trying to bring Andrew Tristan Tate's actions to the
attention of the authorities. There are a group of four women in the United Kingdom who are bringing a civil case against Andrew Tate for rape and
sexual assault. And they have been a real driving force in holding the authorities here to account and making sure that this investigation stays
on the agenda.
There are also women who have very bravely testified to the Romanian authorities and are strongly continuing to seek justice there. And I think
it's so important that those women's voices are heard. There are a community of women in multiple different countries describing an extremely
similar pattern of conduct, grooming, coercion, extremely similar sexual assaults on the part of Andrew Tristan Tate. And I think their voices need
to be heard.
NEWTON: You certainly have distilled their suffering, quite frankly, in a very disturbing way, which brings a whole new light to this case. Heidi
Blake, we want to thank you for joining the program.
BLAKE: Thank you so much for having me.
NEWTON: Stay with CNN, we'll be right back after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
NEWTON: Now, think about this, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopened today, it could still take up to six months for operations to return to
normal. That's the warning from the president of Shell U.S. who says the disruption caused by the Iran war will be felt long after any kind of peace
agreement here is reached.
Colette Hirstius joins Walter Isaacson to discuss how one of the world's largest oil companies views the crisis and what she believes lies ahead for
the future of America's energy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Paula. And, Colette Hirstius. Welcome to the show. Great.
COLETTE HIRSTIUS, PRESIDENT, SHELL U.S.: Thank you, Walter. It's really great to be here with you today.
ISAACSON: All sorts of things keep happening each day involving the Strait of Hormuz. As the president of Shell U.S. and as part of that big company,
tell me your feelings about what happens if we don't get the Strait opened in the next few weeks or so.
HIRSTIUS: Thanks for the question. And I think the important aspect to understand about the situation that we're in is the amount of volume of
energy that typically flows through the Strait. We're talking about 20 percent of the energy, both oil products as well as natural gas in the form
of LNG, that comes out of the Strait to feed, you know, our global economy.
So, what's happened over the past hundred days is that we have a hole of a gap, if you will, of product that's missing off of the market. There have
been many things that have buffered the impact of that hole. One is that we came into this environment in a healthy way. We had a buffer, if you will,
because we were slightly oversupplied against the demand. And we saw an impact in prices. Prices were softening and expected to through the course
of this year, which we have not seen because of the impact in the Strait.
Within that, we've also seen some other product flows come on to the market through release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, through additional
levers that the administration has pulled that have had a positive impact, things like the Jones Act waiver.
And that brings me to your question, which is what happens if the Strait doesn't get opened? The reality is that we will be in an environment where
we have low product supplies. That will result in an increase, an expected increase from the price that we see today. So, we anticipate more pressure
both on crude and on products that come from that product, from the crude overall. And we anticipate that that will continue until prices get high
enough that demand is actually destroyed.
That process of demand destruction is pretty abrupt. It's, you know, a bit of a brutal and blunt force that we want to make --
ISAACSON: You mean a recession happens, is what you're saying?
HIRSTIUS: I mean, it can be much more subtle and soft than that. It can be flights that are canceled. It can be. And then, of course, as that
progresses on, it gets more challenging and more difficult. So, I think that's the aspect and the focus that Shell has, is continuing to make sure
that we're getting our products to market and that we are able to provide the products that our customers need.
ISAACSON: Well, let me try to parse that, which is, how long do you think it will take for us to get back to normal if indeed the Strait reopens
soon?
HIRSTIUS: You know, there are many elements of the process that need to fall into place. The first is that we need those -- the Strait needs to be
open. There needs to be a degree of security where we can move the products out of the Strait. And then we need to restart the upstream engine. That's
really the wells flowing. There's some -- there has been some damage, although not as extensive, and it was early on in the conflict. And some of
that damage will take time to fix.
Then it needs to flow into new tankers that come into the Strait, and then those products need to get to market. I'd say that we will return to a
normal cycle, but it's not going to be in a matter of weeks. It'll take more like quarters to half a year to return to that normal operations.
ISAACSON: Well, you're in Washington right now, wandering probably to the West Wing and talking to people. What are you telling them or what are you
suggesting to them?
HIRSTIUS: There are a few key points to make at this point in time. One is the importance of, you know, getting the Strait open. The second is that
supplies have continued to diminish. And a third point is that while many of these positive options have been exercised, so the decision to release
volume from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it's for situations like this.
[13:45:00]
And on the Jones Act -- a waiver from the Jones Act so that we can more freely move products in and out of our country has helped. And so,
emphasizing that the options that remain, there are not many. We need to continue to support production.
Domestic production is a really important part to realize that the situation had we been 20 years ago when we were a net importer, the impact
that we would have felt in the U.S. would have been significantly different.
So, our natural resources that we have in our country have been utilized to provide some of the buffer and security for the environment that we're in.
ISAACSON: Well, you were actually very involved in that because you were in charge of Gulf exploration as a geologist. You also, besides being
president of Shell U.S., your senior vice president, I think, for the drilling in the Gulf, having so much oil from the Gulf right now, does that
buffer us? Does that make it, in some ways, there's a silver lining to this, that we're a net exporter?
HIRSTIUS: Without a doubt. So, the situation in the U.S., that we are an exporter and that we -- so, we have security in our resource base, but that
doesn't mean that we're fully independent. And I think that's an important aspect to realize, that while we have abundance, we do import different
products to create the products that we then export.
And we want to continue that flow of products where we're sending products both out to our country, but also out to our allies, and that we're
receiving products that we need to continue to produce and deliver energy to our customers and to our society as a whole. If I --
ISAACSON: What I think you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is you're telling people in Washington, don't put a ban on the export of
liquefied natural gas and oil, which some of us might say, why are we exporting it? Why don't we stop exports right now?
HIRSTIUS: I think that's exactly right. So, if we were to see that type of action taken, it would be very difficult for us to continue to produce at
the volumes that we are, both for our country, but also for the customers that we have in our allied countries.
ISAACSON: Are you worried that, in some ways, people on both sides of the aisle, more of the populist flank of the Republican Party and Democratic
Party, are saying things like, maybe we need price controls, maybe we need to stop exports?
HIRSTIUS: If I think about where we are, there's an important aspect of predictability and continuity of our businesses. That's how we can continue
to invest and maximize both our production, but also our support for domestic and allied policies as a whole. So, those sorts of actions, which
would be very short-term focus in the long run, will be quite damaging.
ISAACSON: And what about -- you're going to make probably large profits, especially for the second quarter, because prices are going up. What about
those who say, OK, we should have a windfall profit stack, you all don't deserve that?
HIRSTIUS: Yes, the question of taxes as a whole and what we need to do or what actions exist, the most important action is to open up the street.
It's a commoditized price. We don't set the price. We don't set the price at the pump. We don't set the price of crude as individual companies or a
collection of companies. And it's a question of supply and demand.
So, ultimately, the action that's most helpful is making sure that those products are flowing and they're getting to the places that they need to
be.
ISAACSON: You've been around for at least 25 years in the energy sector. Tell me about the transformation of the U.S. energy sector during that
period, especially, I guess, deep water as your big expertise in the Gulf.
HIRSTIUS: If I reflect over that time period, and again, it's this reality that we have gone from being a country that's a net importer to where we
are now, where we're a net exporter, and that that has come from technology and innovation, coupled with geology, of course, and the natural resources
that exist in our country. We have a regulatory environment that has oversight of how that energy is produced. And that's a great benefit that
we derive many aspects from.
[13:50:00]
One is just predictable, reliable energy to grow our economy. It's also employment and jobs and independence, energy independence. So, there are
many aspects that have changed and materialized.
And the U.S. last year was the largest producer with just over 13 million barrels of oil produced a day in our country, which is remarkable given
that 20 years prior, we were not the first producer in the world and we were a net importer versus exporter. So, it's been quite remarkable. And
again, very much spurred by technology and innovation. And it has been able to be a red thread and a predictable energy for our country and for our
economy.
ISAACSON: But what has happened to the transition, even in its shell, away to a new energy future, one that was less harmful to the climate, but also
relied less on petrochemicals?
HIRSTIUS: Yes. So, I think that we are in a transition. And what the pace of that transition looks like has to do with customers. It has to do with
the type of products that customers are willing to buy. And it has a big piece of affordability. What can customers afford?
We need to exist in the energy system that is the reality of today and not one that we're kind of hopeful for tomorrow. Within that --
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Why not? I mean, why aren't we pushing ourselves to the more hopeful future?
HIRSTIUS: Well, I think our customers aren't willing to pay many of the prices that come with that. But that doesn't mean that we don't invest
today. So, at Shell, we have invested somewhere between $1 and $3 billion a year to make sure that we are continuing to progress with low-carbon
solutions and what that can be in the future.
And it's very important that that work continues to progress and that we figure out, again, given that Shell in the U.S. has been producing for 120
years and providing energy, we know that the next 120 years will look different than it looks like today. And we want to be on the front edge and
continuing to provide energy to consumers in every way possible.
ISAACSON: Well, one of the new investments that you had been doing was the Atlantic Shores offshore wind project. And Shell was very involved. And
then President Trump comes along, and I think he said something like, hopefully the project is dead and gone. This is something you put on social
media.
How has the advent of the Trump administration affected your push towards alternative energy? And is that why you pulled back from things like wind?
HIRSTIUS: It isn't why we pulled back from that project. At the end of the day, we invest in ways that we think will deliver value and return products
to our customers as well as a return to the shareholders. And so, we look across our portfolio and figure out the best way to allocate our capital
based on that.
One of the important aspects that we look at in our core business is where are the areas that we can invest that are lowest carbon intensity. And the
production that we have in the offshore U.S. Gulf is the lowest carbon intensity barrels that exist in the world. And that's an important piece of
our decision making.
Ultimately, projects that we invest in across the spectrum need to rank on a number of different priorities. The return that they deliver is one of
those aspects, but also the intensity of the carbon intensity of the barrels or the molecule or the electron that we produce is equally a part
of that decision making.
ISAACSON: You're in the Washington office of Shell now. You're from Louisiana. So, I don't need to really tell you this, but politics can swing
back and forth. It can be really variable. How are you preparing for the possibility that the politics swings back towards being more antagonistic
to carbon-based fuels?
HIRSTIUS: At Shell, we don't have a political position. We advocate for the policies that we think are the best for ultimately the business that
we're trying to deliver, both for products and customers, as well as for the investment that our shareholders have within Shell.
And what that means is that we do need to focus on the here and now, but we also need to focus on the medium-term and the long-term. And we know what
that means is that we need to advocate across all spectrum of lawmakers and legislatures here in D.C., as well as at the state level. As you well know,
in our state, we have similar politics and situations, and it's important that we aren't caught up in the politics of the moment and really think
about the long-term and how we invest for continuity and delivery.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: Colette Hirstius, thank you so much for joining us.
HIRSTIUS: Thank you, Walter. Great to be here with you today.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: And finally, back like she never left. Serena Williams made a triumphant return to tennis on Tuesday evening after nearly four years away
from the sport. Now, the 44-year-old mother of two proved her worth as one of the all-time greats, winning a doubles match at London's Queen's Club
with Canadian partner Victoria Mboko, who is 25 years her junior.
Tuesday's appearance sparked fresh speculation over a potential Wimbledon return, but Williams says she's still weighing up her decision. Go on,
Serena, your daughters will tell you to do it and we'll continue to watch for that.
That's it for now. I want to thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
