Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with U.S. Air Force Colonel (Retired) and Military Analyst Cedric Leighton; Interview with "A Sad and Beautiful World" Writer/Director Cyril Aris; Interview with The New York Times Opinion Columnist Nicholas Kristof. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 23, 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)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The president's policy is ahead for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Escalation in the Middle East, with the U.S. and Iran trading strikes, and the Red Sea now a potential flashpoint, will discuss the
impact of this widening conflict.
Then--
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): From Breirut, all the way to the stars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "A Sad and Beautiful World." The powerful film exploring life, love, and loss in Lebanon, while conflict is never far away. Director
Cyril Aris joins me.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: We have another huge crisis, again with mass murder, mass rape, with starvation, and we
have the sound of silence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- devastation in Sudan, and the catastrophic hole left by USAID. Welcome to the program, everyone.
I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
An eye for an eye, a head for an eye. The exchange of threats and tit-for- tat strikes between the U.S. and Iran continues apace today, and tensions elsewhere in the Middle East are rising significantly, with attacks in the
Red Sea marking a new front in this conflict. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis claim to have struck two Saudi oil tankers there, sending global oil prices
soaring. Donald Trump says Tehran will be held accountable for any future attacks by the Houthis, warning of major military punishment.
All the while, the human cost of this war is becoming clearer, with Iran's death toll reportedly rising in the past day, and of course, 18 U.S. troops
killed in connection with the war since its start.
So, where does it go from here? Will more lives be put at risk? Military analyst and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton is joining me
now from Washington. Colonel, great to have you on the program.
So, the president is telling Axios that while he hasn't made a firm decision, he is contemplating seriously a major attack on Iran, perhaps
even in the coming days. What options does he have at this point?
CEDRIC LEIGHTON, U.S. AIR FORCE COLONEL (RETIRED) AND MILITARY ANALYST: Well, Bianna, it's great to be with you. One of the things that he does
have an option of doing is using increased numbers of bombers. So, we understand that there are more B-1 bombers that are heading toward the
Middle East. These are intercontinental bombers that formerly were nuclear capable. They are no longer nuclear capable, but they can carry a very
large payload of conventional weapons of various types.
So, this would indicate to me that they are potentially getting ready on the U.S. side for a further escalation of strikes against more hardened
targets. These hardened targets could include things like, of course, the nuclear sites, the sites that are related to that. It could also indicate
that they, you know, may be intensifying efforts against installations along the southern coast of Iran, along the Persian Gulf. But they've been
striking that for quite a bit.
So, maybe coupled with strikes that are already going on in the southern coast, they may be expanding strikes into the central and northern parts of
Iran to include potentially targets around Tehran. So, that would mean administrative, governmental-type institutions. And potentially going all
the way up to several lines of communication between Iran and countries like Turkmenistan, which is basically a rail bridge between Iran and Russia
and China.
So, those are the kinds of things that the U.S. administration could do. Whether or not they actually do them, of course, is somewhat open to
question. But that's kind of the picture as it seems to be right now.
GOLODRYGA: Do you foresee the use, perhaps, or deployment of ground forces?
LEIGHTON: Well, it depends on, you know, exactly what the goals are. If they are going to ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, it would be
logical, you know, to potentially do that. So, of course, that would be a significant step, a significant escalation. And if that were to happen,
that would call into question all kinds of other things. And it would potentially result in a big battle that could, you know, happen around,
let's say, Bandar Abbas or Chabahar or any of those areas in southeastern Iran.
[13:05:00]
Now, if that were to happen, that kind of a commitment would, I think, tax the American political establishment quite a bit. But there's also an
economic imperative to not only stabilize the oil price, but to stabilize the oil price, but also to ensure that there's continued flow of trade
between the Arab Gulf states and the rest of the world.
So, there are several incentives in play here. And it is an imperative that the Strait of Hormuz be reopened for commercial shipping.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we've seen oil prices continue to skyrocket, I think, once again, surpassing $100 a barrel. And that was after the Houthis
claimed to have shot two tankers, and also threatened to close Bab al- Mandeb. And so, now you would have two choke points, potentially.
If we were to go down the path of the president deploying ground troops, would that then include troops securing both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab
al-Mandeb Strait?
LEIGHTON: Well, that would certainly tax American ground forces considerably. There, of course, is a ground force presence in the Middle
East right now, and it is sufficient to go after the areas around the Strait of Hormuz. Now, if you add the Bab al-Mandeb to that, that then
becomes questionable in terms of the capability that is in place right now to do that.
Could it be done? Yes. The United States does have the capability, if you take the total forces into account that the United States has, it would
have the capability to do something like that. But then you have to ask the question, it's one thing to take over areas that are adjacent to a Strait
like Bab al-Mandeb or the Strait of Hormuz, and then what do you do after you take things over, because these areas will not be uncontested.
You know, the local forces, in the case of the Bab al-Mandeb, of course you'd be dealing with the Houthis. They have a resilience that is quite
considerable, as the Saudis found out when they were trying to basically extricate them from Yemen and from, you know, controlling the government
there. They were not successful in doing that.
And the same is true really for the Iranians, at least on the Iranian side. The advantage, as far as the Strait of Hormuz is concerned, is that the
U.S. would have is that they already are basically pre-positioned for an operation there if they needed to do it.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
LEIGHTON: But they really don't have that kind of pre-positioning in or near the Bab al-Mandeb at the moment.
GOLODRYGA: And the president says also that every Iranian shot at a ship in the Strait will cost Iran, quote, "one bridge or power plant, including
in Tehran." We've had current and former military officials say striking infrastructure for political purposes isn't lawful, even if perhaps they
have a dual-use function, both supplying the military and civilians. So, can U.S. troops carry out an order like that?
LEIGHTON: Yes. It gets to be questionable at a point like that because, you know, like you mentioned, in dual-use facilities such as power plants,
such as bridges, there is a bit of a gray zone when it comes to international law and, you know, whether or not you can strike targets like
that.
If there's a preponderance of military use, let's say a bridge is adjacent to a military base or we see a movement of tanks along that bridge or, you
know, something like that, then it would probably be a lawful target. When it comes to power plants or heating plants, which Iran uses in the
wintertime, that could get into more questionable territory because the exact percentage of who uses what might be a little bit difficult to
determine. And it would probably vary by the season, by, you know, the time of day, things of that nature. So, it could be a difficult thing to
determine.
Now, when it comes to an order like that, generally speaking, if you're in a tactical situation, you will take a look at, you know, the specific
target set, get the proper legal advice. But if the legal core is decimated like it is in the case of the Pentagon today, the legal advice may not be
as timely or as forthcoming as you might need for an operation like this.
So, a military would probably carry out these orders, but there would be a lot of questions about that and could put the United States at some risk
from a diplomatic perspective as well as a legal perspective.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's talk about the Pentagon's role here. We haven't had an official briefing, I don't believe, since May. And Secretary Hegseth has
been testifying before Senate this week asking for more supplemental funding. He said that the war's cost has jumped from $25 billion to $37.5
billion in three months' time and that the Pentagon wants to see an additional $70 billion in emergency funds.
[13:10:00]
This already in addition to the more than $1 trillion that they had already asked for in the big, beautiful bill.
Senator Murray, a Democrat, says that the problem here isn't the money, it is the planning. Is she right? Because we continue to hear concerns about
procurement as well.
LEIGHTON: Yes. I mean, I think that is correct, but I think it's actually both issues. I think there is a problem with the money as well as with the
planning. So, if we take a step back and look at how the military is supposed to plan for things like that.
The military is supposed to look at possible contingency operations. And the idea of Iran potentially closing the Strait of Hormuz is something that
is not new. It is something that has been part of the military planning lexicon in the CENTCOM, Central Command Theater of Operations, for decades.
So, that fact, that possibility, was something that has been planned for.
Now, then the question becomes, OK, you think they're going to do something like this, that is your adversary, in this case Iran, could potentially do
something like this, and what are the resources you would need in order to minimize that possibility or prevent that possibility from occurring? And
it seems to me, at least based on my experience, that we really haven't adequately assessed the types of resources that are needed to do something
like this.
We have some things in place that can, you know, take things over for a brief period, a relatively brief period, but for a permanent solution to
something like this, and basically to serve as a deterrent to actions like this, we don't really have -- the U.S. doesn't really have the military
capability at the moment to do that. So, that should have been resourced from a planning perspective.
Of course, there are always competing requirements for both planners and budget people, but that becomes, you know, the tradeoff that has to happen.
And I think people have been kind of -- you know, ever since the end of the Cold War, have been kind of, you know, lulled into a false sense of
security when it comes to military planning purposes.
And the reason I go all the way back to the Cold War is that when you look at the global war on terror and all the post-9/11 events that have happened
with the military in the U.S. and of course how we projected our power, the basic idea was you had the military that was fighting a war with a
different kind of adversary, an adversary that didn't have air power or drones in significant numbers or a naval force of fast boats and mines.
So, that's the kind of thing that, you know, we have to plan for in a case like Iran, and we didn't need to plan for that in the case of Iraq or in
the case of Afghanistan.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. The last place that I think Congress would say they want to cut costs for, cut corners, is the military and protecting our brave
troops. Eighteen, as we've already noted, service members have been killed since this war began. The president received the remains of four service
members at Dover yesterday.
This raises then the question, not just of funding to protect them and to, I guess, pursue U.S. policies and strategy, accompanying that should be
transparency. That is what defense -- former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told me when I spoke with him earlier this week about this issue. And
here's what he said on that point of transparency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Maybe it's a just war. Maybe everything we're doing is just. How do we know that? I mean, there's been
no transparency, nobody from the administration. We hear the president every day, but everything he said is just basically not true. And then he
changes his approach the next day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, what are the families of the fallen -- you know, set aside Congress, what are the families of the fallen, what do they deserve to hear
about the sacrifice that their loved ones have made?
LEIGHTON: Well, I think, you know, the trite phrase, honesty is the best policy, is really apropos in a situation like this. And Secretary Hagel is
absolutely right. The president missed a great opportunity to, in essence, prepare the nation and the world for actions against Iran. If he had the
kind of precipitating intelligence that said, OK, the Iran is actually going to do what he alleged Iran was doing.
But if you don't have something like that, then it becomes, you know, not only difficult, but also wrong to go in and conduct operations like this.
Because you're doing it without a precept, you know, without a cause, and you're doing it just because you can. And so, if that's the case, we're in
kind of difficult Straits it without a precept, you know, without a cause. And you're doing it just because you can. So, if that's the case, we're in
kind of difficult straits here.
[13:15:00]
But at the very least, both the president and the secretary of defense need to be as honest as possible, certainly with the families of the fallen, but
really the families of all the troops that are deployed to a war zone of any type, especially one like this.
And, you know, when you look at the sacrifices that the fallen have made, you know, there's a lot of, you know, second guessing that, of course,
happens in situations like that. But one of the things that is critical is that how well are you protecting those service members from possible
incidents and consequences like this? And, you know, it seems to me that some of the protections for some of the bases in places like Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Kuwait and, of course, Iraq, that those protections were not adequate. And if that's true, then there's a lot that needs to be done
there.
So, yes, you know, when you go back to the budget part of this, the budget also needs to take into account the need to conduct force protection
missions in addition to operational missions against an adversary. So, our troops need to be protected. They're a precious resource. And if they
aren't protected, then we failed them.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, some vulnerabilities clearly have been exposed over the past few months. Let me finally ask you about the changes in leadership
that we've seen in Ukraine, in their military. It's led to street wide protests. When President Zelenskyy fired a very popular defense minister,
he then subsequently fired his top general as well, because the two men did not get along to completely different visions as to the direction of this
war. Different generations as well.
Now, President Zelenskyy has replaced his top general and reportedly that the former defense minister will only come back if he has his job. There's
opportunity here clearly with this new general appointed to continue to pursue some of the inroads they've made technologically. But how concerned
are you about just how this chaos may impact the momentum that we've seen on Ukraine's side?
LEIGHTON: Yes, chaos is never good, you know, in a situation like this. And unless you're inflicting chaos on your adversary and you don't need any
basically self-inflicted wounds, you know, that, you know, come about when there is this open type of rift between a minister of defense and, you
know, and the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces.
So, General Syrskyi, you know, the former commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces was somebody who was schooled in the old Soviet
style of doing things. And certainly, he was an able officer. But when you combine that kind of experience and sometimes it's hard for military
people, and I say this as a military person, sometimes it's hard for military people to come into an innovative cycle and, you know, actually
truly innovate the way and manner in which they conduct warfare.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Ukraine is a place where it's basically a laboratory for a lot of different powers, including the U.S., Russia, China. Everybody is
watching this. And the key thing is that, you know, former Defense Minister Fedorov was really, really good at innovation. And the way in which he
conducted himself, you know, certainly got results as far as we can see looking in from the outside. But the key is to have a military that
supports those efforts.
And I think one of the things that President Zelenskyy will need to do is to make sure that people understand, number one, they're civilian in a
democracy like Ukraine. There's civilian control of the military. But the military must also execute as best as it can once it has received orders
that can be carried out in a way that allows them to not only maintain the sovereignty of Ukraine, but also prosecute the war, you know, beyond
Ukraine's borders.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I'm sorry, we are just tight on time there, but we'll continue to watch that space closely, as well as developments in Iran.
Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you for the time. Really appreciate it.
LEIGHTON: You bet, Bianna. Thanks so much.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, amid war and disaster, the pain felt in Lebanon now told through a love story in a searing film. It's called "A
Sad and Beautiful World." And the director joins me after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: And now, to Lebanon. This week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun visited the White House seeking support as his army moves into the south,
taking over newly established pilot zones from Israeli forces.
But away from Washington and the border, Lebanon is making its voice heard on a very different stage. "A Sad and Beautiful World" was the country's
official Oscar submission last year. It follows two childhood sweethearts reuniting as adults, their romance tested by decades of national trauma
from the civil war to the 2019 financial collapse. Here's a clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): What do you love about me? My own parents barely do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I just love you.
Hold on tight, the train is moving. Faster and faster.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): From Beirut, all the way to the stars.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): But we never made it to the stars.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I see everything with you. I want this life with you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): But I don't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And the film's director, Cyril Aris, joins me now. Cyril, welcome to the show. I loved this movie. Every minute of it, the chemistry,
the story plot, it was just extremely riveting. And I know you wrote it in 2019, the script for this film. Following that, you had the revolution, the
financial collapse, the port explosion, COVID and war all before cameras even began to roll. So, I'm curious, how different is the film that you
ultimately made from the original script you wrote?
CYRIL ARIS, WRITER/DIRECTOR, "A SAD AND BEAUTIFUL WORLD": Yes, it was quite different, you know, because when I first started writing the script,
Lebanon was in a very different place. And, you know, you just mentioned all of the events that we went through and just hearing about them is quite
tiring.
But really, I wanted to explore our relationship with Lebanon, which is a country that we love and we're deeply attached to. But also, it's a country
that makes us suffer because of all the political events, all the regional conflicts. So, it was a way to explore that relationship, that loving
relationship and that love-hate relationship we have with the country through these two characters.
Because, yes, it is a country that goes through crisis and wars and turmoil, but it's also a beautiful country. And we needed to honor that as
well.
GOLODRYGA: A country you love unconditionally, but also continues to break your heart. And that is clear in the story plot here and the love story
between these two characters. I know the production of this film, it sounds almost as dramatic as the script itself. You were rolling cameras in Beirut
while Israeli jets were breaking the sound barrier overhead.
How do you navigate that as a director to keep your crew, your actors focused on the movie while real life events are impacting the filming?
ARIS: It's a great question, but you know, it's either we don't do it and we just succumb to the overwhelming darkness that reigns over our country,
or we just keep making art, keep building, keep hoping, keep constructing. And we do this through art.
But, yes, it is true that when we were in production, the south part of Lebanon was being bombed on a daily basis. And it still is, despite all the
ceasefires. And we were constantly under -- you know, reading the news of threats from the from the Israeli side that we will turn Beirut into
another Gaza and all of that. But we're kind of accustomed to these situations. And we do art in spite of that and to really prove our
existence and to keep hoping and dreaming through art.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: And the love story continues throughout all of this chaos between Nino and Yasmina. These are two destined to be together, born a
minute apart in a world of chaos. And that is subsequently the life that they find themselves in for decades to go and to follow. They were
childhood sweethearts. They're reunited years later. It's a romantic comedy drama.
ARIS: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: And you talk about Lebanese humor as sort of a shield against darkness. And that's not exclusive to just Lebanese humor, that there are a
lot of cultures in the world that can relate to that. Just talk about including that humor while also not negating the very difficult subject
matters around it.
ARIS: Of course, I think that this paradox and, you know, this balance is embedded in the title itself. It's a sad and beautiful word. I think that
when we think of Arab cinema and we think of Lebanon, we often think of wars, drama, tragedy. But we are so much more than that. And in our
cultures, in Mediterranean cultures and in Arab cultures, we do use humor and comedy as means of survival. We laugh at the situation. We laugh at
ourselves because that's the only thing we kind of have left.
So, it was quite important for me to keep that tone in the film, because I think this very true to our identity. Comedy is part of our identity and
it's our tool of survival.
GOLODRYGA: Let's see one of those romantic comedy moments where Yasmina decides last minute not to leave for a job prospect in Germany.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Grandpa, of course I won't kill myself.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Screw the day I met you. I've been begging for a transfer
to Germany for years.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Want me to drive you back to the airport?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Screw your stupid jokes. You idiot. Come over here. Screw your dumb face. Screw your stupid stare. Screw
every part of you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Their chemistry is just -- it is palpable. But it also speaks to, as we began this conversation, not only a relationship between two
people who are very much in love, but also the relationship they have, you have, many have with Lebanon.
ARIS: Yes. You know, it's -- they're deeply affected by the social and the political context happening around them. And it feels that even though
they're fated to be together and they have this great love story, the country keeps separating them. Because of the circumstances, Yasmina finds
herself drawn to, you know, moving abroad to migration and he's deeply affected and he's much more rooted in Lebanon and in wanting to build
something there. So, yes, in a way, the relationship becomes a reflection of the social, political context that they grew up in and they evolved in.
GOLODRYGA: And Nino, both of these -- both of Nino and Yasmina have lives that have been marked by tragedy. Nino orphaned at a young age. His parents
were tragically killed. Yasmina's parents divorced and she never really made contact with her father again. And the way Nino, who is sort of the
film's optimist, has coped with this tragedy is to envision an island, a utopia that he constantly goes to. And it's become sort of a metaphor in
the film. What does that island represent?
ARIS: The island is it's so many things, you know, well, you know, first of all, it gets the concept of the island is -- comes from the grandfather
of Nino and it's how he explains death to little Nino. He just tells him that your parents have just been away. They've been to this beautiful
island he turns this very dark concept of death into something more fantastical, something more magical and more lyrical.
And little Nino describes the island to little Yasmina, and she appropriates the island it becomes for her this place where her family is
happy. They're intact, where the divorce is not happening, where she's not forced to choose between her parents.
[13:30:00]
And this island becomes really their safe haven, their special place that they go to, you know, whenever things get tough around them, it's their
place. It's eternal love. It's this paradise. And I think what the film is also trying to suggest is that this island could be Lebanon if we choose to
see it this way.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. There's a scene I'd like to play a clip from where Nino tries to convince Yasmina to sell his restaurant and stay in Beirut. Let's
play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Tell you what, see the garden over there? Where we'll farm/ Go, start digging.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): And how do we but the land?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The landowner agreed to sway Chez Nino for Chez Yasmina. We pay the difference. He's accepting bank check for
up to 30 percent of its value. A deal from heaven. Our money's trapped in the bank, might as well use it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You really want to sell Chez Nino?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): It's fine. One must evolve. You taught me that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I won't let you sell your parents' restaurant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, once again, Nino, the optimist, choosing to cling to his homeland, Yasmina can't justify it. I'm wondering where you find yourself,
which character do you identify with more?
ARIS: It's the eternal question that we all have as Lebanese. And I think we find ourselves sometimes we're closer to Nino. Sometimes we're closer to
Yasmina, depending, again, on the state of the country. I think rationally thinking we're all closer to Yasmina, we're all more cynical because we see
reality as it is. But at heart, we're all closer to Nino. We want to believe in something a little brighter. So, I think we're all within that
spectrum. And it really depends on what we're going through.
GOLODRYGA: And everyone in this film, I mean, so many of these characters eventually leave. Yasmina and Amal, their young daughter, to Germany, the
restaurant staff to the Gulf. And sadly, Nino's grandfather. I mean, you just see the dysfunction in the country and how this poor man died in an
ambulance, stuck in traffic. It's a real tragedy.
ARIS: Yes. It's based on a real event. Yes, yes, yes. That's based on -- it was in 2019 or 2020 and there was an ambulance that was stuck in traffic
because there was a political convoy of some minister or some parliament member that was passing. And when I saw that, I found it so shocking. And I
found the visual to be a metaphor of everything that's going wrong in the country.
GOLODRYGA: And the real nadir, right, of the conflict as well. And yet, going back to this constant hope for Lebanon just this week, President Aoun
visited the White House. It was the first Lebanese leader there in 20, in nearly 20 years. And he pledged to end hostilities in the country and with
Israel as well forever. Here's what he told my colleague Christiane Amanpour last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH AOUN, LEBANESE PRESIDENT: We are fed up since 1969, we want to live in peace and they deserve to live in peace and in dignity. They deserve not
seeing their homes being destroyed every five to 10 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Is this the island that Nino's envision envisioning?
ARIS: Well, we can certainly hope so. But, you know, I do agree with our president with this that, you know, like my generation, we've known crisis
and war, my parents' generation as well, my grandparent's generation. So, at some point this needs to end and we should envision an island, a
peaceful island. And the way it's described in the film is it's a place where there's no wars, no missiles, no hostilities. And I think that after
decades and decades and decades of war and crisis, I think we deserve a break. And that's certainly what my generation tries to fight for.
And in 2019, we had like a major popular uprising that we like to call a revolution against the political class at the time and against all of these
conflicts that we do not want to be victims of and subjected to.
GOLODRYGA: And there's so much talent, there's so much beauty, there's so much that Lebanon has to offer the world, including its food. And I have to
say, food is a separate character in and of itself. In this film, Nino's restaurant, it's Lebanese food, I think, with sort of a hint of Italian
flair as well. Again, this one of those themes that can be identified around the world in multiple cultures, connecting people through food. Talk
about talk about that part of the film.
[13:00:00]
ARIS: Yes, yes. That's the best part. That's my favorite part, is food, because it's -- again, it's very much part of our identity and all of our
gathering, like family gathering or, you know, gathering with friends, it's always revolving around food. These huge tables are like 20, 25 people.
And, you know, you have all of this food on the table.
And here in the film, basically, Nino inherits this restaurant from his parents and before that from his grandfather. And he's always trying to
blend -- you know, to make it more relevant. So, he takes Lebanese cuisine and he blends it with flavors from the Mediterranean cuisine just, you
know, in order to be relevant.
And then we kind of see in the film the evolution or the state of the country through the food and in the part where Lebanon is peaceful and
vibrant. We see that food is abundant. It's colorful. It's quite saturated. But then when the country is falling apart, you know, a metaphor of the
recent years, we see that food becomes more bland it kind of disappears. So, there's -- it -- you know, it takes a bit of a storytelling element.
And also, I wanted to use food because I think that in film we're very much based on sights and sounds, right? So, it's the visuals and what we hear.
But very rarely you have the sense of taste that is enabled in the cinema. And every time I see films that have food, I'm always kind of hungry. I
always feel that there's this extra sense that's being enabled. And since we're so popular for our food and our cuisine, I really wanted to include
that in the film and enable that sense of taste and that hunger for Lebanese food.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, for sure. Guess what I was wanting to order and eat that night after watching that film. That was what I was craving, Lebanese food.
And one thing I know, never order lettuce or ask for salt Chez Nino.
ARIS: At Chez Nino, for sure.
GOLODRYGA: It is a phenomenal film. Thank you so much for joining us. And thank you for sharing it. We really appreciate it. I hope everyone gets a
chance to see it.
ARIS: Thanks a lot. Thanks for having me. The film will open in select theaters across the country on Friday. And it's playing at BAM Cinema
tonight also.
GOLODRYGA: Fantastic. Cyril Aris, congratulations. Thank you for joining us.
ARIS: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, to the growing humanitarian crisis in Sudan, Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times columnist who has long covered foreign issues.
He joins Michel Martin to discuss his reporting from Sudan and what he calls a discouraging lack of global attention to the catastrophe.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Nick Kristof, thank you so much for joining us once again.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Good to be with you.
MARTIN: You have spent, I don't know, decades reporting on conflicts, humanitarian crises, recently you've been reporting on Sudan, you say it's
the world's worst humanitarian crisis, you're not the only person who said that, and yet it does not seem to be penetrating the world's consciousness
the way other crises have in the past. And in fact, even the way other crises are now. And I just wonder why you think that is.
KRISTOF: You know, Michel, I just find it so discouraging because 20 years ago, there really was a global outcry about the Darfur genocide. And it
made a difference. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today because there were protests on American universities,
because there was pressure from the administration at the time.
[13:40:00]
And this time we have another huge crisis, again with mass murder, mass rape, with starvation, and we have the sound of silence.
And, you know, in fact, I think this time it might even be easier for public pressure to have an impact because the United Arab Emirates is
funding one of the militias that is particularly responsible for atrocities. The U.S., under both Trump and Biden, said that that militia
was committing genocide. And I think the UAE is embarrassable. I think that if there were an outcry, it would withdraw the support from that militia,
or at least insist that it withdraw.
And yet we have been unwilling to use that leverage, either the administration or the public as a whole. And so, people are dying every
day.
MARTIN: Give me a sense of the scope of the problem. I've reported on this. I had the opportunity to get to at least to the border of Sudan, you
know, traveling through Chad. And, you know, just at the time I went, gosh, maybe two years ago, there were already millions of people who had been
displaced. And now, at this point, what is it, something like 14 million people have been displaced by the war, both internally and externally? I
mean, give us a sense of from your reporting.
KRISTOF: One of the challenges, frankly, Michel, is that it is now very difficult to access. And so, we have fewer people on the ground, either
journalists or aid workers, in some of the crucial areas. But the slaughter has gone on. The mass rape has gone on. And starvation has intensified kind
of in waves.
It has also moved south. At that time when you were there, it was mostly focused on violence in the Darfur region. Now, it has moved somewhat south.
And in particular, I think the crisis of the moment is that the Rapid Support Forces, the militia I was mentioning, it has largely surrounded the
city of El Obeid and kind of south of Darfur and is threatening to overrun it. It's hard to know exactly what would happen, but when the RSF militia
overran the city of El Fasher late last year, the estimates are that 60,000 people were slaughtered in a few weeks.
MARTIN: And in your July 11th column, you wrote, let's name the country that's financing mass murder. And you argue that many governments are
reluctant to publicly identify the United Arab Emirates as the principal backer of this militant group, the Rapid Support Forces or RSF. So, a
couple of questions about this. First of all, how do you know that the UAE is backing the RSF and why are they?
KRISTOF: So, it's an open secret that there has been a pipeline of arms from the UAE to the RSF militia. The planes from the UAE have been tracked.
The weapons that the RSF has have originated in the UAE. Officials talk about it openly, both U.N. officials, American officials. The Biden
administration talked privately to the UAE, but would not speak publicly about it. And they claim that they had promises that the UAE was going to
back off. And in fact, that didn't happen.
And, you know, the UAE is an important country. And the U.S., well, the Biden administration wanted as part of a major peace deal with Israel,
President Trump has major business interests, family business interests with the UAE. Other countries in Europe have important business ties with
the UAE. And so, they prioritize that relationship with the UAE, which means they've been unwilling to speak publicly about its role arming the
RSF.
And, you know, this the leverage we have. The UAE has a lot to be proud of. It's an extraordinary country. But when it arms a militia that is engaged
in mass -- I mean, I visited villages, and I'm sure you heard these testimonies on your trip that line up every man or every boy over the age
of 10, and they gun them down. And then they kidnap and rape the women and even young girls. And this the modus operandi that they have pursued both
20 years ago in the Darfur genocide and that they started again against three particular black African tribes in the Darfur region in particular.
[13:45:00]
MARTIN: What's the UAE's goal here? What is the purpose of this?
KRISTOF: So, I think there are two or maybe two and a half reasons for its role. One is that it does have mineral interests, gold and others, and it
is getting -- extracting that gold under the RSF areas and getting it back to the UAE. And that is a reasonable economic gain for it.
And the second is that it is seeking influence around the region. And it -- other countries, including Saudi Arabia, have backed the Sudanese armed
forces, the other major force in the civil war. And the UAE, in turn, is backing the RSF militia. And whoever wins that civil war will control the
future of Sudan. So, the UAE is making a bet on its long-term influence.
And I think the -- maybe the half reason is that at this point it is so committed to the RSF that if it were to back down, then the other side, the
Sudanese armed forces, would emerge victorious perhaps. And then it would be -- or it fears that it would be isolated from influence in Sudan for
years to come. And so, it goes on, funding the RSF, arming it, and complicit in mass murder.
MARTIN: What convinces you that it would make a difference if governments were to, I don't know, name and shame the UAE for this or put pressure on
the UAE? What convinces you that that would matter?
KRISTOF: So, the UAE cares deeply about its international image. It's quite proud of it. It invests a lot of money in burnishing that image
around the world. It has these sports teams that it owns around the world. And we also know that a half-dozen years ago it was engaged in a brutal war
in Yemen, which at that time was the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
And there was an outcry over that, and it wasn't, frankly, all that serious an outcry. It wasn't that the UAE was going to be stigmatized or even
really lose its access to American weapons. But that outcry and that pressure and that international embarrassment was enough to get the UAE to
withdraw from that Yemen civil war and, you know, somewhat improve the situation in Yemen so that it's not now the world's worst humanitarian
crisis. That's now Sudan.
So, we have seen the UAE responding to that international pressure. And I think that, you know, pressure this time would make a real difference. It's
probably not going to come from President Trump, especially given his business interests there. But I think Europe can do much, much more to
speak out. I think the public can.
MARTIN: I want to turn to another story that you've been covering. You're reporting on USAID. In recent weeks, you've written about a young girl in
Uganda who died of malaria after bed nets and medicine ran out, a pregnant woman in Liberia who died because an ambulance had no fuel. You wrote about
an eight-year-old girl in South Sudan who lost access to HIV medication.
I think people have been reporting on sort of the macro impact of this abrupt cut in USAID, which was one of the first targets of that Elon Musk.
They called it the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. USAID was one of the first targets. I mean, they made a big sort of point of going
out and like chiseling the letters off of the building, you know, front. Why was it important to you to sort of focus on these individual stories?
KRISTOF: We're not hardwired to have empathy for mass casualties, but I think it is human to have a certain amount of empathy for a child in front
of us, for somebody else. And I don't think that the American public appreciates, you know, how many children are dying unnecessarily, how many
women are dying in childbirth unnecessarily because of these steps that we've taken.
You know, USAID was saving one life every 10 seconds until Elon Musk came along, at a cost of 23 cents for every $100 of national income. That seems
to me a bargain. You mentioned this woman in Uganda, and this left a deep impression on me. I happened to drop in on this village quite randomly. I
asked about people who died recently.
And this woman, Yama Freeman (ph), she was -- she had two small children. She was pregnant. Again, she was in obstructed labor, and so she
desperately needed medical attention and a C-section. And so, the villagers called the local hospital and said, you know, we need an ambulance to take
Yama (ph) to the hospital. And the hospital said, well, yes, the U.S. has provided these ambulances and used to provide fuel, but the U.S. has cut
off fuel supplies because of the destruction of USAID, so we don't have any fuel.
[13:50:00]
So, if somebody can come here and give us diesel for the ambulance, we can send the ambulance to your village. Well, that wasn't possible, obviously.
And so, they put Yama (ph) in a hammock as she's bleeding to death, and the strongest young men in the village put her on their shoulders, and they
raced 10 miles down this dirt path toward the hospital. And they're shouting, you know, Yama (ph), you know, hang in there. You'll be OK.
You'll make it. She didn't. She bled to death en route. And they turned around and trudged back to the village and buried her there.
And, you know, I mean, Michel, any of us, if we came across a woman who was dying in the back of an ambulance because the ambulance had run out of
fuel, of course we would step in and hand over $10 or $20 or whatever it might be for fuel to save that woman's life. But Yama (ph) died because we
didn't think it was worth it to provide fuel for that ambulance. And I would hope that when we think of it in those micro terms, we might feel a
little more empathy and a little more compassion.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, I want to ask about another piece of reporting that you did this year, an investigation into allegations of
sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli detention. It generated, I don't know, an extraordinary reaction from, I would say, pretty much across
the political spectrum. In a way, it is kind of a piece with the other stories we've been talking about.
We're talking about conditions that are extreme, that are causing extreme suffering, that you feel are that your reporting says and that your
observation says are just are not being taken seriously by much of the world. And I just wonder, you know, what you -- do you have some conclusion
that you draw from it, from the experience that you had in that investigation?
KRISTOF: I mean, the Times has been great and standing behind that. We know we knew it was going to be a controversial article going into it. I'm
not sure that we expected that Prime Minister Netanyahu would call it a blood libel and threaten harsh legal reaction. I mean, you know, the
reaction was enormous.
But at the end of the day, Michel, I mean, our job as journalists is to go and cover things without fear or favor. And I absolutely am confident in
that story. I talked to 14 people who had experienced sexual violence at the hands of Israeli authorities or settlers. And then the U.N. then
followed up shortly thereafter, actually, by putting Israel on a list for the first time of countries that do engage in this kind of sexual violence.
I -- you know, all we can do is shine a light and hope that it gets attention and that it will raise the cost of this behavior down the road.
And I -- you know, I wish that Prime Minister Netanyahu would have spent less time denouncing me and denouncing the story and a little more time
investigating the reports of sexual violence, including from Israeli human rights people. And even more than allowing the Red Cross to visit
prisoners, Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. And if he thinks that he will be exonerated, all the more reason to allow the Red Cross to
interview those prisoners.
MARTIN: Nick Kristof, thank you so much for talking with us.
KRISTOF: Good to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: We should note that in a statement posted online last year, the United Arab Emirates denied the allegations, saying in part, the UAE
unequivocally condemns the horrific attacks against civilians in Sudan. The statement goes on to say, the UAE has consistently called for a full arms
embargo across Sudan. As evidenced by the latest U.N. Panel of Experts' report published in April 2025, there is no substantiated evidence that the
UAE has provided any support to the RSF or any warring parties. Claims suggesting otherwise are an attempt to misrepresent the facts and distract
from the urgent need for a ceasefire and for accountability among those perpetrating violence on the ground.
And finally, crime, business and an ever-changing city. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning author Colson Whitehead has released the much-anticipated
conclusion to his Harlem trilogy. The third and final novel in the series is called "Cool Machine" and it follows protagonist Ray Carney through one
last heist in a rapidly evolving 1980s New York. Here's a glimpse of our conversation.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: They tend to call your Harlem books nostalgic. You tell it all, though. The rats, the sewers, the garbage, the crime. Is nostalgia the
right word here? Because on the one hand, it does seem to be a love story to a city that is like no other. But you don't hold back either.
COLSON WHITEHEAD, AUTHOR, "COOL MACHINE": No, I'm trying to be truthful. It's a Valentine, but also with a body count. And so, I'm not shying away.
GOLODRYGA: I love that line.
WHITEHEAD: I'm not shying away from how the city actually is. It's beautiful and also tragic. It'll chew you up, but also lift you up. And
that churn, that energy of the city is what I love about it. And if I can depict it, you know, I'm doing my job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And we'll have the full interview on tomorrow's show. All right. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from
New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
