Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.S. State Department Former Russia and Europe Sanctions Lead and "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare" Author Edward Fishman; Interview with "The Crown Prince & the President" Frontline's Correspondent/Producer Martin Smith; Interview with "Something We Said" Author Elizabeth Stordeur. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 29, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Nobody dares to speak. Nobody dares to shout, because a sound could mean a life saved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A race against time in Venezuela. Reporter Stefano Pozzebon gives us the details on the desperate search and rescue efforts amid the
earthquake rubble.
Then, our talks back on track. Following a weekend of renewed fire between the U.S. and Iran, former American diplomat Edward Fishman tells me where
negotiations stand.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "The Crown Prince & The President," a strategic alliance or one of personal gain? A new documentary explores the tangled relationship
between Saudi Arabia's MBS and President Trump. Frontline correspondent, Martin Smith, joins me.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIZABETH STORDEUR PRYOR, AUTHOR, "SOMETHING WE SAID": The N-word really doesn't mean anything outside of the white supremacy of the United States,
that it has no meaning for him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- what legendary comedian Richard Pryor taught his daughter about race and identity? Author Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor speaks to Michel
Martin about her new memoir, "Something We Said."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
No reprieve for disaster-struck Venezuela after an aftershock hit the country earlier today. Although it caused no further damage, it adds to the
anguish that Venezuelans have been feeling since last week's twin earthquakes. More than 1,400 people have been confirmed dead. Many are
still missing, and thousands are in dire need of humanitarian aid.
But amidst the heartbreak, scattered rescuers have offered relief, including that of a mother and her small baby in Caracas.
24 countries have sent aid, and thousands of rescue workers are in the country to help with search operations. But frustrations are rife in
Venezuela over the government response, as the race tightens to save those still buried under the rubble.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We want support. We want heavy machinery. We want to take our family members with us. I'm not the only one
in this situation. They're almost not going to let us in here anymore. They haven't helped us clear the rubble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: A collapsing economy and years of political strife under Chavismo are worsening the crisis in what is becoming the biggest challenge
yet for acting President Delcy Rodriguez.
Stefano Pozzebon has been following search and rescue efforts in the hard- hit city of La Guaira. Here's his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR (voice-over): Rescue workers are digging their way through rubble and dust to locate survivors in La Guaira. Trapped
for days under a pile of collapsed homes. The port city is ground zero for the Venezuelan earthquake search and rescue operation. This elite rescue
team from the U.S. believe they've heard the tap, tap from under the debris.
POZZEBON: They try to communicate with them with sound. And this is why this is truly a race against time. But it's a race against time that is
happening in utter silence. Nobody dares to speak. Nobody dares to shout because a sound could mean a life saved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's an elevator, too, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Next to the stairs?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In front of the stairs.
POZZEBON: Now, all of this is happening as the relatives of the people trapped inside and other survivors are staying here. They're waiting.
They're watching. It's an excruciating way for someone who has a seven- year-old son trapped beneath the rubble.
POZZEBON (voice-over): Ronald Pinarua (ph) has not slept since Wednesday. He was out when the quakes hit. His son was with his grandmother at home.
I will find my son today, he says. I know I will.
[13:05:00]
It's now or never for thousands of people who are still missing. Most earthquake survivors are rescued within 72 hours. These rescue workers say
they will continue to dig until everyone is accounted for.
The Venezuelan government estimates more than 12,000 people have been displaced. They all need a place to sleep and eat.
POZZEBON: We've just arrived to a fast food. It's a fried chicken restaurant, but they've been turned into a community kitchen. Basically,
all of these people are now working in a train to bring out 1,500 ready meals. It's fried chicken and fries. But that will fuel both displaced and
volunteers that are trying to help.
POZZEBON (voice-over): At this restaurant. Everyone lives in La Guaira. Everyone has lived through the double earthquake, but nobody wants to rest.
It's the strength of a community who refuses to give up despite the reality.
By sunset, the search stopped. Ronald was found along with his grandmother under the rubble, the latest victim in a tragedy that's already taken more
than 1,400 lives. It will still take days to recover their remains, but the pain will stay forever.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Let's bring in Stefano Pozzebon now for more updates from Caracas. Stefano, you and I spoke in the last hour, and there is a glimmer
of hope every time one of these that have been trapped there for five days are found alive, including that 21-year-old man who you had been reporting
on. But that window is shrinking, and the aftershocks are still being felt today.
Just talk to us about what you are seeing there now, five days since the double earthquakes, and what you're hearing from those search and rescue
workers.
POZZEBON (on camera): Sure. Sure, Bianna. Well, yes, the window is shrinking. It hasn't shrunk yet, or at least that is what the search and
rescue workers here in the city Centre of Caracas are telling us.
Actually, just after speaking to you in the -- an hour ago, we were able to speak with one of the leaders of the Mexican search and rescue team that is
working through the rubble behind my back. His name was Miguel Angel Garcia (ph), and he came out to speak with the media to explain that even though
they're using heavy machinery -- and perhaps they are in the background, we can't get closer at this point, but you can see that there are excavators
making their way through a pile of debris.
Well, he explained to us that that is not a demolition. That is still part of the search and rescue operation. It's just that the people who they
believe might still be alive under that pile of debris are alive, but trapped under maybe seven, eight, nine floors, or former floors, stacked
one on top of each other.
So, he did say that they're using special techniques developed by the Mexican earthquake rescue team, which is renowned around the world for
their capabilities, to try to build tunnels into the debris, into the pile of concrete, to make contact with them.
And even here in Caracas, of course, it's a little bit more noisy than it was yesterday at that location when we filmed the piece that you just saw.
But still, the feeling of silence is one, Bianna, that it's new for me in Venezuela. I've always considered this country one of the loudest and most
joyful countries in Latin America, at least, and despite the dramatic conditions of the humanitarian crisis happening here in the last 10 years,
and yet, this earthquake has really managed to silence Venezuela, which is something that, for example, personally, I would have never imagined was
possible.
And so, the feeling of silence, the feeling of mourning, the grief, is now boiling to the surface right now because we are five days into this tragedy
and people are beginning to start to metastasize, metabolize all of that pain that this nation as a whole, as a community, has lived through.
Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: And a natural disaster like this, of this scale, would be a huge challenge for any world leader. But when you look at acting President
Delcy Rodriguez, just newly put into place, about seven months ago by the United States of America after the raid seizing Maduro, how are Venezuelans
responding to how she has been handling this crisis thus far?
POZZEBON: Oh, the frustration is building up. I think that the authorities are doing their best but struggling to manage this situation. At the end of
the day, Venezuela is a country that has lived through an authoritarian government over the last 10 years or so. So, the state apparatus is not
tasked to act on itself.
[13:10:00]
One -- for example, one thing that a lot of rescue workers have shipped with us, and there was a lot of frustration, is there is a lot of idle
times, there's a lot of time spent waiting on decisions to be made or decisions to be communicated.
We, for example, when we flew in on Friday, we stayed -- my flight to Caracas was an hour and 40 minutes, and then we spent more than two hours
just waiting for our luggages to come through at the airport, because there was so much aid available there to be mobilized, but not enough people to
get organized to sort the situation from the ground up. They were all waiting for instruction from above. And that is something that happens at
every layer of this state structure that is reeling after 10 years of a one-man government. That was Venezuela under Maduro. He was the person in
charge of pretty much everything.
And now, of course, they have to respond to a catastrophe like something they've never seen before. They are struggling with that. They're doing
their best. And clearly, the International Community has come to help and rescue. There is the feeling that the world has responded by mobilizing a
lot of resources, but there is frustration over the slow pace of how these resources are coming down to Venezuela, down to La Guaira, the disaster
zone.
Yesterday, for example, we were there for an entire day, and we saw an enormous amount of, like, collapsed buildings with rescuers there going
through, but without cranes or excavators, just with a pike and a shovel.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and time is of the essence here, as we know. It is notable that Delcy Rodriguez is accepting aid from every country that it appears to
be offering, and that's quite different from previous regimes in Venezuela. You think about Maduro, you think about Hugo Chavez in 1999, when he turned
away outside help from other countries after a devastating landslide.
POZZEBON: Yes. This country is different, however, from the one of 1999. Back then, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America.
Now, it's by far the poorest. I think that this earthquake has changed already the history of Venezuela, like few things that I've seen since
coming here 10 years ago.
Yesterday, for example, Ronald, the gentleman that lost his son yesterday, and we filmed with him the whole day, he's a member of the police force
here. He was open about it, he allowed us to film with it, which is already a first. Normally, not many members of the security apparatus here would
allow free press to be around them. And then the people who helped him locate what remained of his son were, of course, the rescue workers from
Fairfax County, Virginia. When they found it, the two of them hugged each other.
GOLODRYGA: Wow.
POZZEBON: Seeing a Venezuelan police officer hugging a U.S. aid -- the rescue workers, of course, are not military, but they're U.S. uniform with
stars and stripes, is something that I would have never imagined. We saw yesterday a contingent of Marines arriving in Venezuela, Bianna, and that -
- you know, that is the history.
I've lived here for 10 years, we would always joke about the Marines coming to La Guaira. The Marines arrived in La Guaira, but unfortunately, the
circumstances are just too dramatic to point that place in history.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's just unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to bring together scenes of humanity, like you've been witnessing. Stefano Pozzebon
in Caracas, Venezuela for us, thank you.
And do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, talks between the U.S. and Iran are reportedly back on track, with negotiation teams set to meet in Doha on Tuesday, according to
President Trump. Both sides agreed to stand down for now, following a flare-up over the weekend, which began after Iran struck a cargo ship that
was passing through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission.
Who exactly controls this critical waterway is just one of the many major issues threatening the fragile ceasefire. And without clarity, how likely
is a lasting deal? Edward Fishman is a former American diplomat and author of "Chokepoints." And he's joining me now from New York. Edward, welcome to
the program.
So, you've said that President Trump has started a war with Iran only to leave Iran holding what you called, quote, "the most important energy
chokepoint in the world." So, how did the strongest country on Earth end up receiving -- end up being on the receiving end of a chokepoint that it now
can't unlock?
EDWARD FISHMAN, FORMER RUSSIA AND EUROPE SANCTIONS LEAD, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHOR, "CHOKEPOINTS: AMERICAN POWER IN THE AGE OF ECONOMIC
WARFARE: So, look, Bianna, I think this is a direct response to the U.S.- Israeli war against Iran. We'd always known that the Strait of Hormuz is an essential chokepoint for the energy trade. You've got 20 percent of global
oil sales, about 20 percent of LNG, that's liquefied natural gas, that went through that narrow waterway every day before the war.
I think the reason that Iran did not weaponize it is that they required a state of war. The way that they've seized control over the Strait of Hormuz
is through drone strikes, through using anti-ship missiles. And it's really inconceivable, Bianna, that they would have been, you know, using drones
against neutral shipping if they weren't in a state of war.
So, I think this is a direct consequence of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. And now, that Iran has shown that power to the rest of the world,
it's going to be extremely difficult to wrest that control away from Iran.
GOLODRYGA: And what's so frustrating, and we haven't been able to really answer the question, is that this wasn't a novel issue that so many U.S.
administrations had been warned that this could be and likely is the main leverage that Iran would hold over any military strikes, over any military
campaigns. And yet, it did seem to take this White House and Israel by surprise when Iran did what it did.
It's interesting, you know, Edward, I think back to when your book came out in February of 2025, "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic
Warfare," my husband happened to be reading it. I'm like, oh, that's an interesting niche topic. Never -- you know, assuming that a year and a half
later, this would be something that the whole world would be focused on. The Strait of Hormuz, obviously, Exhibit A here.
Can you just explain to our viewers what exactly is a chokepoint and how in 2026 can this narrow pathway of water really hold the global economy in
such a strain as it is right now?
FISHMAN: So, look, chokepoints are parts of the global economy where one country has a dominant position and there are few, if any, substitutes.
Now, most of the chokepoints that have been used for economic warfare in recent decades have been economic chokepoints, not physical ones.
So, you think of the dollar, which is involved in 90 percent of all foreign exchange transactions, or rare earth elements, where China refines about 90
percent of the global supply. You've seen both the U.S. and China use those chokepoints as economic weapons.
I think the older form of chokepoints, these geographic chokepoints, like the Strait of Hormuz, have also the same sort of potency. The difference,
of course, is that they're harder to weaponize outside of wartime, right? You need to be able to be willing to use drones or missiles in order to
close off other countries' access.
I think really the irony here, though, Bianna, is that if you think about the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, that was fundamentally about the U.S.
weaponizing a chokepoint, namely the dollar, putting economic pressure on Iran, and coercing Iran to give the United States concessions on its
nuclear program.
What we're now seeing today is sort of the reverse, which is that Iran has used its chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz, to impose economic pressure on
the United States, and then coercing the United States to provide Iran with economic relief.
So, I think what we're seeing is that it's not just the United States that can weaponize these chokepoints. It's countries like China and even middle
powers like Iran as well.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We'll get to China and its weaponization of its rare earth minerals in just a moment. But I do want to get to the three conditions you
set for what classifies as a real chokepoint in a foreign affairs piece, and here's what you wrote. True chokepoints share three characteristics. A
single country or coalition of close allies possesses a dominant concentrated market share. Substitutes are unavailable in the short term,
and the country or coalition can weaponize its position in ways that impose asymmetric pressure, inflicting substantial pain on the target while
suffering minimal self-harm.
[13:20:00]
So, does Hormuz meet your own test today, especially given that Iran is facing its own economic pain by that Strait remaining closed if their own
ships aren't able to sail through and sell oil?
FISHMAN: Yes. So, I think you're hitting on exactly what the analytical error of the Trump administration was. I think they assumed that Hormuz
would not meet the qualification of chokepoints because Iran could not weaponize it asymmetrically.
The idea was that for Iran to close the Strait they would have to use these sea mines. They have thousands of them and if you were to put hundreds or
thousands of sea mines across this narrow waterway that's only about 20 miles across at its narrowest point, you would be closing off shipping for
everyone because of course sea mines don't discriminate. They'll blow up a tanker carrying Saudi oil just as well as they'll blow up a tanker carrying
Iranian oil.
But the novelty and sort of the surprise that Iran has unleashed is that just by virtue of using these very low-cost drones to strike a very small
handful of ships, they've only hit about two dozen vessels over the course of this conflict, that has changed the psychology of the whole shipping
industry, the risk calculus, where you now have ship owners saying we are not sending our ships to the Strait, we don't care what the insurance costs
are, whatever, because we're just not going to put our mariners lives at risk.
So, I do think that Iran using this sort of asymmetric warfare of drones has been able to turn the Strait of Hormuz into a chokepoint that it can
use with asymmetric effect.
GOLODRYGA: So, we've seen two different approaches from this one administration here in the U.S. President Trump has long said that the U.S.
will remain in full control over the Strait. We had Secretary of State Marco Rubio be a bit I think more nuanced and honest last week when he was
visiting Gulf allies, saying that it is international law that precludes anyone from controlling the Strait, and thus no country other than Iran
would be in support of the status quo.
But realistically, is there anything that the United States can do to restore freedom of navigation without the escalation militarily that it
does seem President Trump wants to avoid happening again?
FISHMAN: No, and this is a really unfortunate circumstance where we do have international law on our side. Very clearly, it is not Iran's to
choose, it's not Iran's ability to, they shouldn't be able to choose who can go through the Strait of Hormuz and who can't. This is a naturally
occurring international waterway.
But what we saw is just a few days ago, when United Nations under the auspices of the IMO, the International Maritime Organization, created a
channel through Omani waters to allow ships to evacuate the Strait of Hormuz, Iran responded by hitting two neutral vessels. On Thursday, they
struck a cargo ship, a Singaporean flag cargo ship. And just on Saturday, a Panamanian flag tanker carrying Qatari crude oil was struck by an Iranian
drone.
So, I think what is happening right now in real time is the Iranians are trying to enforce with drones that they are going to be the gatekeeper of
the Strait of Hormuz, not the United States, not the United Nations. And I think unfortunately, they're probably going to get what they want, unless
the United States is willing to go back to the battlefield. And it just doesn't seem like Trump has the appetite to do that right now.
GOLODRYGA: I mentioned the China example of using or having leverage over its rare earths minerals. And it did seem like that surprised the world,
European allies, trading partners, the United States, as well. But that seemed to be sort of a one and done kind of card that China could hold in
play because all of these other countries then say, we can't be in this type of position again, and we need to invest in our own rare earths or at
least diversify who we purchase them from.
Could that not be what we see transpire with the Strait of Hormuz as well, looking for alternative routes here so that no country would be put in this
bind?
FISHMAN: So, look, it is a common phenomenon with chokepoints that once you weaponize them, the countries that then feel vulnerable, take steps to
insulate themselves. So, to your point, since China used these rare earths weapon last April, the United States has been investing billions of dollars
to try to indigenize our supply chain for rare earth minerals.
What I'll say is, I do think that those investments are helping, but they're going to take years to bear fruit. So, I do think that China is
going to retain this leverage for many years into the future. I think similarly with Iran, almost unquestionably, you are going to see more
pipelines built to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. The Emiratis already are working on doubling the capacity of their pipeline to a port called
Fujairah. I'm sure the Saudis will do the same.
So, I do think that the salience of Hormuz will be less than it is today in five or 10 years, but that's still a long time for Iran to have that kind
of a leverage over the international energy system.
So, I do think that the potency of Hormuz as a chokepoint is probably going to go down, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's going to take many
years.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and that's why, as you wrote in the New York Times, that Iran may be battered militarily and economically, but this has strengthened
them strategically, at least in the interim.
[13:25:00]
It's also interesting that you think this could be an example for other countries to exploit chokepoints. Do you see that happening now?
FISHMAN: Yes, because I think it's really important, as always, to think about incentives. You might be asking, well, why would Iran not just be
willing to allow the U.N. to oversee the Strait of Hormuz? Why do they need to control it? Well, the Wall Street Journal came out the other day and
said that Iran has calculated, Iranian officials, that just by charging service fees at the Strait of Hormuz, that is a $40 billion annuity for the
Iranian government. It's massive. That's basically like taking their oil revenues and doubling them just by virtue of charging fees at the Strait of
Hormuz.
So, if you think about other countries that would then witness Iran making tens of billions of dollars a year charging fees, basically monetizing this
chokepoint, I think it's going to prove irresistible. We've already seen the Indonesian government flirt with the idea of trying to establish a fee
structure at the Strait of Malacca. They walk that back, but I do worry that if Iran does institutionalize this fee structure moving forward, it's
going to prove irresistible for the Indonesians, probably for the Houthis at the Bab el-Mandeb, and perhaps other countries as well.
GOLODRYGA: No doubt, seeing a windfall that Iran currently has that they didn't have February 27th. Edward Fishman, thank you so much. Really
appreciate the time and the conversation.
FISHMAN: Yes. My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the Iran war is testing relationships between the U.S. and its Gulf allies, as many nations like Bahrain and Kuwait have bore the
brunt of Tehran's targeting of regional American military bases.
Saudi Arabia has not allowed the U.S. to carry out strikes from its territory. The nation maintains a layered alliance with Washington, one
that can be seen as strategic, but also involves business ties with President Trump and his family. It's the focus of the new documentary, "The
Crown Prince & the President." Here's the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the Iran, this transaction that essentially, we've seen for any war --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We see that there's kind of a realist calculation about what America's interests are, and it is to remain very closely allied.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do President Trump see the Saudis as important to his American first agenda?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Trump saw Saudi Arabia as really the linchpin to the modern Middle East.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They buy apartments from me, they spend 40 million, 50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Producer of the film and PBS Frontline correspondent, Martin Smith, is joining me now from New York. Martin, welcome to the show. So, as
it relates to the war and Iran, which your piece ends on, but let's start this conversation discussing, you and other media outlets have reported
that MBS, Saudi officials, had been against this war being launched by Israel and the United States, but that once it started, MBS then started
pressing President Trump repeatedly, and you report several times in one week, urging him to finish the job then that he started and not leave a
wounded but still powerful enough Iran that can strike its neighbors as it has been.
How do you square the public posture of that restraint with the private pressure as the war was going on in its first few months of escalating?
MARTIN SMITH, CORRESPONDENT/PRODUCER, FRONTLINE'S "THE CROWN PRINCE & THE PRESIDENT": Well, I think that the crown prince was wise and knew that
striking Iran was going to have a lot of serious consequences and it was not predictable exactly what would happen, although the closing of the
Strait was predicted.
But then, once it started, he wanted the president, as you mentioned, and we go into this in the documentary, that he wanted the president to strike
even harder and he encouraged him on at least three occasions in one week and perhaps more. And then the Iranians struck an airport near Riyadh and
struck oil facilities and he started to feel the cost of this and then -- and the public in Saudi Arabia was certainly alarmed. And so, he wanted
this to end.
So, the Saudis, I think, were really somewhat confounded about what to do once the war had started. First, they wanted to finish it, then they wanted
to lay off. So, it's damaged the relationship. The Saudis, in fact, are looking elsewhere in the world for security guarantees that they're not
getting from the U.S.
GOLODRYGA: How do you think that's changed how MBS approaches Iran going forward, no matter what happens between the United States and Iran, if they
ultimately do reach some sort of longer-term deal?
SMITH: Well, I think they were doing that prior to this war. I think they had some arrangements with Iran and I think that they're going to want to
continue to pursue that.
[13:30:00]
I mean, Iran is just across the water from them, is a big, powerful neighbor, and they don't want to go to war with them. So, I think it's
going to increase their diplomatic initiatives to make some kind of -- come to some kind of detente with them.
GOLODRYGA: And as you said, that was the path they were pursuing, which was quite opposite of how the UAE had been approaching Iran leading up to
this war. And the UAE chose a different path, a more hawkish path, even partnering up with Israel. And I believe, as had been reported, striking
inside Iran during the kinetic war here as well before the ceasefire.
Do you sense an ideological difference between MBS and MBZ in the UAE?
SMITH: Well, they were very tight. And MBZ was a champion of MBS when MBS was moving to become the crown prince. He promoted him, his ambassador in
Washington promoted the idea that MBS was the guy that we should be paying attention to. But over time and over the war in Iran -- I'm sorry, the war
in Yemen, they worked together and then they worked against one another.
So, the one thing about the Middle East, anybody that covers this knows that it's constantly shifting and changing. So, now the UAE is more aligned
with Trump and the Saudis a bit less so. But that can change overnight.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. But one of the examples of how quickly things change, I mean, the fact that the UAE has left OPEC, too, in the midst of all of this
was quite a big headline at the time as well. Let's talk about the film's title, because it is "The Crown Prince & The President." So, it's not about
two governments. It's about two men.
Why are the men here and their relationship the focus of your investigation, which has been over the course of a decade, I believe?
SMITH: That's right. So, both men are transactional and see foreign policy as something that they would choose to conduct on a personal basis. And so,
right from the beginning, when Trump was elected in his first term, the Saudis sent a delegation to New York to meet with Trump officials. They
singled out Jared Kushner as somebody that could be an effective conduit. And Trump then accepted an invitation to make his first foreign trip
overseas to Riyadh. And that was an unusual move.
Usually, presidents go to Canada or Mexico or Europe. He wanted to go to Saudi Arabia because he saw -- and Kushner was -- sort of -- it was his
brainchild that if you could get Saudi Arabia on board and get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel, what later became known as the Abraham Accords, you
could get the rest of the countries in the region, the other Arab states to recognize Israel and you would have a -- you would have Middle East peace.
And it's all seen as transactional through business ties. I mean, the mantra of Kushner was peace through prosperity. If you could make people
wealthy, they would be less likely to attack one another.
GOLODRYGA: You spent a lot of time in this film covering Jared Kushner's ties to MBS. And there are clips of him even saying early on in this
administration in the first term that he was not very familiar with Saudi Arabia diplomatically. And he was able to admit that publicly, but said
that he thought that it was an opportunity to try something different that previous administrations had failed to do. That was his approach to it.
After Trump left office in 2020, Jared Kushner didn't return to his real estate company. Instead, he launched a private equity firm and affinity
partners. And then that took a $2 billion investment from Saudi sovereign wealth fund. Six months after Jared Kushner left the White House, the
Public Investments Fund's own screening panel had flagged affinities and experience and called this operation unsatisfactory. And the board that MBS
leads overrode those objections. Here's how you highlighted it in the film.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: Kushner was not the only bet MBS made. He wasn't alone.
PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Steve Mnuchin also walks into a Steve Mnuchin, the treasurer's secretary, also walks into Saudi and gets a
billion-dollar investment. It's like a piggy bank for former American officials. It's incredible. It's incredible.
And normally would be the cause of a great storm of controversy. And there would be hearings, there would be, you know, investigations. There would
certainly be a lot of commentary and criticism. And it kind of came and went.
[13:35:00]
SMITH: Mnuchin and Kushner have brushed off concerns about conflicts of interest. They were private citizens at the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And Kushner, we should note, as you allude to in your piece, they're denied that the investment represented a conflict of interest. So,
were you able to answer the question of what MBS, what Saudi Arabia was actually attempting to buy here with this investment?
SMITH: I can really only speculate on that. But the public investment fund had been a very conservative fund. It invested in domestic companies, it
invested in Saudi Arabia, it invested in Treasury bills. They were not doing what they did after -- really after the Shoji murder. They started
investing -- or they had been ramping up investments overseas, especially in the United States. I think some 40 percent of their investments were in
the United States. And this gives them influence overseas. It makes them an important player on the world's investment.
So, as one person says in the program, today, you don't need an army, you need a sovereign wealth fund that can help you throw weight around in the
world. So, I think that, you know, that's what I think that they were after.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Jamal Khashoggi, human rights and MBS's records on this are covered in this film as well. And you talked to MBS yourself
and he told you that the killing of Jamal Khashoggi quote happened under my watch and that he took responsibility for that, given that it was under his
watch.
Watching President Trump defend MBS and go one step further, just sort of dismissing it as things happen. How was that interpreted in the kingdom?
SMITH: Well, I think there was a sigh of relief that they could go as far as they had gone, both in a slew of human rights abuses, arresting so-
called dissidents, writers, journalists and whatever, and all the way up through the murder of Khashoggi.
The relationship did not -- you know, that Trump did not pull back. He said, we're going to stay with Saudi Arabia. He's asked by a reporter, did
you let him get away with murder? He says, no, no, no. This is about America first. We're sticking with Saudi Arabia.
GOLODRYGA: Martin Smith, you get into a lot over the course of those 10 years that you've been investigating these two men and their relationship.
I encourage everyone to watch it. "The Crown Prince & The President" will be available to watch on PBS stations and online from June 30th on. Martin
Smith, thank you so much for joining us.
SMITH: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, how a single word can shape history, identity, and family. Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor began researching the changing use and power of
the N-word after an incident in her classroom with a white student.
Growing up as a biracial woman in America, she always understood the word's impact, but it wasn't until later, when connecting with her father,
legendary comedian Richard Pryor, that she began to process how that word influences questions of selfhood. Elizabeth joins Michel Martin to discuss
her new book, "Something We Said," and about what it reveals about language and family legacy.
[13:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Professor Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor, thank you so much for joining us.
ELIZABETH STORDEUR PRYOR, AUTHOR, "SOMETHING WE SAID": Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: You know, I have to tell you, I've followed your work for years. Your TED Talk, for example, it's been viewed more than 2 million times.
Until you wrote this book, I never knew that you were Richard Pryor's daughter. And I kind of got the impression from reading the book that you
preferred it that way, or you at least preferred it that way professionally. Am I correct?
PRYOR: Professionally and personally, 100 percent. It was in doing this work and writing this book that I finally started to publicly and I guess
privately claim my father because it, I don't know, it was just awkward for me.
MARTIN: Really? I mean, come on. He was one of the most famous -- certainly one of the -- he was -- at one point, he was one of the most
famous comedians in America. He was certainly one of the most influential black comedians in America. One of the most famous, I guess, entertainers.
PRYOR: Well, it hadn't -- I mean, I've always been so proud of my father and wanted to claim him, but it was just -- there were so many intrusive
questions when I was younger that people would ask me, do you know him? Are you close? How often do you see him?
And then my father became as famous for his demons in some ways as he did for his brilliance. And people would talk to me about that. And the best
way for me to kind of protect myself, not from my father or my connection to him, but from people's intrusion was to start coordinating that reality
off. And I didn't do it until I really got into the middle of this work.
MARTIN: How I read the book is that you intended to start writing a scholarly treatise about the origin of the N-word, as we now call it. And
you're going to tell us more about that. But the family story kept intervening, you know, kind of the way like a pesky kid keeps coming into
your study when you're trying to get your work done. Would you say more about that?
PRYOR: I mean -- well, first of all, I -- as I delved into the research, there was few things that I read that didn't mention Richard Pryor. OK. So,
he is part of his groundbreaking work is to bring like the authenticity of the black experience that he had growing up and speaking that way, and that
included the black use of the N-word that many Americans had never really, you know, engaged with before. And he brought that on stage and that two of
his Grammy Award winning albums from the 1970s have the N-word in the title. So, his name came up over and over again.
And in fact, this journey started in my classroom when a white student said the N-word quoting a line from a 1974 film, "Blazing Saddles," that my
father co-wrote.
MARTIN: That your father co-wrote, that he co-wrote.
PRYOR: Well, what happened shocked me because I actually froze and had no idea like what to do. I really became sort of undisarmed in that moment in
the classroom, in front of my students, in real time. And it kind of catapulted me into a journey, a three-pronged discovery, really, because I
knew something was happening to me on a personal level.
I knew I had to be more intentional as a classroom teacher about how to teach the history of racism and pay attention to the fact that racism would
appear at times in the classroom even inadvertently and how to negotiate that. And to think about, did I even know what this word meant? And digging
into that history, and it was in that history that I kept confronting my father more and more and in my own memories.
MARTIN: You've described sort of very movingly how, I hope you don't object to this word, how traumatic in some ways it was for those thoughts
to keep intruding into your scholarly work. I mean, you describe it very vividly.
You write about this early in the book and you said, look, in a daze, I walked back to my office trying to process what happened. How could a group
of six letters so easily throw me off my game? As a black professor of African-American history, this was exactly the kind of racially charged
moment I thought I should know how to handle. But instead of guiding the students and taking charge, I just stood there.
Growing up with my white Jewish mother and going to mostly white schools, I never felt comfortable saying the N-word. It dried up on my tongue like
dirt, even though it was a mainstay of my father's comedy. But in academia, there was an expectation to say the word for the sake of historical
accuracy known as the mention exception.
[13:45:00]
And then you sort of go on to sort of talk about how it sent a chill through the classroom. And even you, you sat on a bench catching your
breath. I just found that so profound that it had like almost like a physical reaction. Can you say why do you think it is?
PRYOR: Well, what I know is that there is a way in which this racism is not processed, there was no -- I know growing up, I had no space to even
have the conversation, which is part of the reason I wrote the book is I was hoping that people could have a jumping off point to really understand
that this isn't -- and I think trauma is the right word, but that this doesn't only represent this national trauma, this relic of racism past, if
you will, but it has this intimate hurt, this intimate -- and hurt -- even hurt diminishes what it does because this is clearly part of, you know,
systemic racism but it touches us in these ways that are so uniquely personal to us, even as it has this national impact. And I think that's
what I saw in that moment that I didn't really understand before it.
MARTIN: Say more about your own story, if you would. Your parents came from very different worlds. Your father was a young black comedian from
segregated Peoria, Illinois. Some people know his backstory.
You do go into it a bit in the book, but he was raised in a brothel. I mean, his grandmother was a madam. His mother was a sex worker. His dad was
a pimp. He grew up like you describe in the book, you know, seeing the people who cooked his breakfast and sent him off to school, having to have
sex with strangers for their job. I mean, you describe this in really sort of vivid terms.
Your mom was a white Jewish woman from Boston, his first serious white girlfriend. How did they meet?
PRYOR: They met in a nightclub called Cafe Wha in Greenwich Village when they were like 22 and 23. And they were on dates with other people and
liked each other better. Yes.
MARTIN: Oh, OK.
PRYOR: And that was that.
MARTIN: You know, you were born -- there's a picture of you of him holding you as a baby, you know, in the book. But you didn't actually meet him
until you were six, six years old. I mean, you have a really vivid memory of it. Do you mind telling that story?
PRYOR: Not at all.
MARTIN: Your parents split up, obviously. They split up, obviously. So --
PRYOR: Yes. I mean, they split up pretty much right after I was born. And my mom took me back to her. You know, they were in L.A. My father was
making it in Hollywood. And my mom, you know, went basically with her tail between her legs back to her folks in Boston and raised me with them. And
she wrote him a letter when I was about six years old because my father was not involved at all and said, how is it possible that I love a child so
much and her father feels nothing?
And a few weeks or months later or so, my father sent for us and we went to Newark New Jersey to watch him perform. And that was the first time I met
my father. And I met him in a hotel room when he was about to go on stage. And I -- the second I saw him, I was head over heels. I was like, wait,
this is what having a father is? Like, yes, I want this. And I was terrified I was never going to see him again because I hadn't seen him for
so long.
MARTIN: Would you describe the -- what -- in your TED Talk you call these moments of encounter --
PRYOR: Yes.
MARTIN: -- with the N-word.
PRYOR: Yes.
MARTIN: I wanted to ask you two stories. Like what was your moment of encounter with the N-word in his work? But what was your moment of
encounter with it in your own life?
PRYOR: In my class, in my conversations, in my workshops, over and over again, people would tell me about these unprocessed moments that they had
with the N-word and not really knowing how to respond or what to do. And I came to call them points of encounter. And as I dug more deeply into my own
life, I realized, of course, I had them, too. And one of them was the very first meaningful conversation I had with my father. So, like I said, I
thought I was never going to see him again.
And then he appeared for my seventh birthday, like which I was so shocked. And my mother was like, you know, tell your father what happened at school.
Well, what happened at school was two boys had called me the N-word at the playground. And I got the sense that this was really different because my
white teachers who always told me, you know, you're not stupid when the kids call me stupid. You know, you're not ugly when the kids called me
ugly. Didn't tell me I wasn't an N-word when the kids called me an N-word.
[13:50:00]
So, I was like, what is happening here? So, I told my father at this dinner for my birthday, and I thought he was going to be ashamed of me for not
being stronger and sticking up for myself. And he said, you know, don't let nobody ever call you that. And he said, you are black, which I did not
know. I knew I was Jewish. I didn't think I was white because I didn't know that either. White didn't mean anything to me either.
But he said, you are black and you are connected to other black people. And if anybody ever calls you or them this word, you've got to knock them out.
Like, that was the direction, the marching orders.
MARTIN: So, how did you figure out that the N-word was such a big part of his work?
PRYOR: Well, I knew it was part of his work, but I didn't know that it mattered. I didn't know that he had a journey with the N-word. Let me put
it that way.
MARTIN: Yes.
PRYOR: That he was building on black power luminaries, that this was an artistic decision, that he had walked off of a Las Vegas stage in 1967 and
said, I'm not doing schtick or vaudeville anymore, but I'm speaking authentically, whatever that is, I am going to be the real Richard Pryor
and a truth teller on stage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD PRYOR, COMEDIAN: I mean, they accidentally shoot more -- out here than any place in the world. Every time you pick up a paper, --
accidentally shot in the ass. How do you accidentally shoot a -- six times in the chest? Well, my gun fell and just went crazy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PRYOR: And I didn't understand that part of it, that that was connected. And then at the end of the '70s, when my father is at pretty much the
height of his fame, he goes on a journey to Africa, inspired by, you know, Alex Haley's roots. He goes to Africa and he has this epiphany there that
in the context of Kenya, where black people are doing the most menial things and running the country, that the N-word really doesn't mean
anything outside of the white supremacy of the United States, that it has no meaning for him. And he vows that he's never going to call another black
man the N-word again.
And he pulled me aside before he said that on stage and told me that he was never going to call anybody the N-word again. And as far as I know, he
never did.
MARTIN: Wow. So, here's where I need you to put your professor hat on, because one of the interesting things about the book is this is a
meditation into the origins of the word, how it became a slur and what social meaning it has. OK, so as briefly as you can, what is the origin of
this word?
PRYOR: The word did exist and not exactly as a slur. In 1619, when the first 20 enslaved people were kidnapped and brought to Jamestown, those
people were referred to in the records as the N-word. But at that point, that word, you know, described a labor category, people marked by the color
of their skin, involuntary laborers, in perpetuity, you know, me, my children, my children's children. And then it really becomes a slur in the
1830s when black people become free and are still called this word.
So, this is less an indictment on black people being enslaved and more on a statement of the impossibility in this ideology of black people ever really
becoming free. It's an assault, an attack on black prosperity. And that's where you hear the N-word used as the slur that we understand it to be
today.
MARTIN: Why do you think all these years later, decades, actually centuries later, this word retains so much power?
PRYOR: I mean, it really is a representation of the racial and foundational racial racist history of the United States in so many ways.
And one of the questions I asked myself for a long time, I mean, I understand why I do still understand the kind of ways that it's vicious and
used by, you know, racists. But why would black people want to use a word, the question might be to subjugate us.
And I think that's a misguided question, because the real question is, why does it still resonate for black people to use among each other from
certain places? And I think it's it is always going to be a statement against social injustice, against inequality.
[13:55:00]
And as long as those things are in place, this word is going to resonate for African-Americans.
MARTIN: Elizabeth Stordeur Pryor, Professor Pryor, thank you so much for talking with us.
PRYOR: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
