Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Russia and Eurasia Program Senior Fellow Dara Massicot; Interview with Former Pentagon Official Elbridge Colby; Interview with "The Grapes of Wrath" Actress Cherry Jones; Interview with "The Grapes of Wrath" Director Carrie Cracknell. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 26, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up. Russia hammers Ukraine's
energy infrastructure. Defense expert Dara Massicot on how Moscow is handling Ukraine's surprise incursion.
Then, after a violent weekend in the Middle East, all eyes now on negotiations to prevent a wider war. CNN correspondents on the ground, join
me from there.
Also, ahead, as Donald Trump tries to find a strategy against the reenergized Democratic Party, his former Pentagon official Elbridge Colby
on what Trump 2.0 would look like for the world.
And why "The Grapes of Wrath" is more relevant than ever the director and star of in brand-new adaptation of this Steinbeck Classic. Carrie Cracknell
and Cherry Jones join the show.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Ukraine is reeling from a massive Russian attack that killed at least five people and damaged vital energy infrastructure. Ukraine's air forces say
targets across almost the entire country were hit during Monday morning rush hour by drones and missiles, including Kyiv, where many people took
shelter underground. Widespread power outages are reported. President Zelenskyy says it was the biggest air assault since the war began. And he
said it was time its allies lifted restrictions on the range of weapons and how to use them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Every leader, every partner of ours knows what strong decisions are needed to end
this war and to end it justly. There should be no restrictions on the range of weapons for Ukraine while terrorists have no such restrictions.
Defenders of life should face no restrictions on weapons, while Russia uses all kinds of its own weapons, as well as Shahed drones and ballistic
missiles from North Korea.
The United States, the United Kingdom, France and other partners have the power to help us stop terror. We need decisions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Meanwhile, to the state of play on the battlefield, Russian ground forces are pushing towards the strategically important eastern city
of Pokrovsk, and Ukrainian forces continue to occupy Russian territory in the border region of Kursk. They say they've captured there roughly the
same amount of territory that Russia has taken in Ukraine this year.
Dara Massicot is a defense expert and a former senior analyst on the Russian military for the Pentagon, and she joins me now from Washington.
Welcome back to the program.
DARA MASSICOT, SENIOR FELLOW, RUSSIA AND EURASIA PROGRAM, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Was it just a matter of time? Are you surprised that this really extensive set of airstrikes has targeted their infrastructure?
MASSICOT: It is. So, it's been several months since we've seen a Russian strike of 100 missiles, and this one actually had 100 Shahed drones along
with it. It targeted energy infrastructure across at least 15 regions of Ukraine at a time when the Ukrainian energy grid is already at 50 percent
capacity. So, it was very damaging.
AMANPOUR: And do you think that this is in response, finally, to the Kursk incursion?
MASSICOT: It's certainly been enough time for them to coordinate a strike plan like this. It's two weeks into the incursion, but it's not clear to me
if they were already planning to do something like this. The Russians have been absolutely hammering away at Ukrainian energy infrastructure for the
past year, but this 1 was particularly potent.
AMANPOUR: Do you have any reason to believe what's been reported that before this incursion into Kursk there was some talk that the Russians and
the Ukrainians might try to get Qatar to help broker at least a ceasefire in terms of each other's energy infrastructure. Do you think that was
really in play?
[13:05:00]
MASSICOT: I have heard that was in play. And from what I'm hearing, the talks have not been fully cancelled, but the Russians have put it on pause.
So, the Ukrainians and the Russians are certainly not in a place where they are willing to talk about territorial lines or concessions, but this kind
of agreements, to not strike each other's energy infrastructure, is potentially a way to take something off the table that both sides are
suffering from young. Ukraine, obviously suffering in a much more significant way.
AMANPOUR: And what Ukraine does to Russia is hit oil depots, right, and that causes damage, but also jacks up the price of oil around the world.
MASSICOT: It does, it does. But what Ukraine is experiencing as the result of these strikes, they're down to 50 percent, their capacity. And so, a lot
of major cities are experiencing daily brownouts. Now, I think Kyiv is currently in a blackout from the attacks this morning. It is impacting
local regions in Russia, but certainly not to the same extent that civilians are being impacted as a result of Russian strikes.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think strategically? You know, it was conventional wisdom that this year, the remainder of this year, and we were
told this, you know, earlier this year, that 2024 would be mostly a defensive year for Ukraine, a year to regroup to see if they could get any
more weapons and more, you know, more troops, et cetera, mobilized. And maybe 2025, they would go on the offensive. I think it's fair to say just
about everyone was surprised by this August offensive into Kursk.
What do you think is going on? What's your analysis of why they took that step then and where it will lead?
MASSICOT: I think it's certainly changed the conversation. It's changed the dynamic. It's thrown the Russians off their response to this. And for
the first week was largely to freeze in place. And there was certainly a lot of chaos going on in terms of who would command and control the
response. They're beginning to set up the response now for the Kursk incursion.
But I do think that this has shown that Ukraine understands the Russians. They picked a very weak spot of their border. And that's where they chose
to enter. It is embarrassing for the Kremlin, and it is also highlighting that the Kremlin is not willing to take any major force off the table
inside occupied Ukraine to deal with this. There are very few units that are actually up there to deal with the Kursk invasion -- excuse me, the
Kursk incursion. And so, I think that it does expose vulnerability of the Russian state.
The flip side is that it did take forces off the line elsewhere inside occupied Ukraine and Donetsk where the Russians are currently pressing
forward.
AMANPOUR: So, what is the -- where do you think that will lead? Because what we said, Pokrovsk, for instance, where they're pressing forward is yet
another -- I mean, some might call it a small village or whatever it is, but people say that it's important strategically. It's an infrastructure,
you know, strategic point, supply lines.
MASSICOT: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. It is a small city, but it sits at the crossroads of very important road networks in the
Donetsk region. So, Russia has been trying to reach this particular place since the beginning of this year, if not late in the fall, and it's taken
them, you know, six months to get 50 kilometers at a great cost to themselves, but they're continuing to press forward on their salient.
And the units that were moved up to Kursk, some of them were in that region trying to do the defenses. And Ukrainian units there are feeling pressure
on that part of the front line. But it's a very dynamic situation right now in Kursk. We're still seeing what's happening there. But I do have my eyes
on Pokrovsk and Toretsk in particular, and the Donetsk Oblast.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think is going to happen?
MASSICOT: Well, I think the Russians are going to prioritize Pokrovsk. I think this has been a very pronounced goal for Gerasimov. I think he wants
it. I think he needs to show the Kremlin that he can achieve it, because he, frankly, has not been doing very well, one might say, politically in a
correct sense. So, I think that he will try to take the city.
They are already -- and the Ukrainians already evacuating it. The police are leaving. The administration is leaving. So, I think the next question
will be, what happens next? If they were to take it, what does that mean? It means that there are challenges in Donetsk, but it's still going to take
the Russians a long time if they think that they have the strength to completely take over this. I don't see that in the near future. Certainly,
not even by the end of this year.
AMANPOUR: So, it's still a really hard slog for the Russians. But as you say, they're putting pressure despite the Kursk incursion on this important
strategic. However, big it is, it's strategically big, Pokrovsk. But what about Zelenskyy's call for the west to take the shackles off, to allow him
to be able to use the full capability of the weapons that they've been given, especially the long-range weapons further into Russia? Is that a
legitimate request?
[13:10:00]
MASSICOT: I think so, yes. And we can look at the response to Ukrainian strikes using their own systems, using their own missiles or their own
drones on Russian -- on bases. They have been able to get the Russian Black Sea fleet to leave Crimea and be based in Russia proper. Russian aircraft
that launched glide bombs have already relocated well beyond ATACMS range because they're anticipating that Ukraine might be given that authority.
So, Russia does respond to this kind of threats or this kind of abilities to target platforms.
And while Ukraine might not be able to target all the flankers that carry glide bombs, if they can push them back, they can reduce the number of
sorties or how many times Russian aircraft can take off each day and bomb Ukraine. And that relieves pressure on the frontline too. So, there
absolutely is a military utility for doing this.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- oh, well, the next question is, do you think that allies will allow them to do it?
MASSICOT: I think that depends on the ally. As far as I understand, some of our NATO allies don't have any restrictions on weapons that we provide
to Ukraine. So, as I understand, that is still a restriction that we have here in the United States. But I have seen, in the past month in
particular, Ukraine on their own are able to target very important Russian airfields or logistics sites or troop regeneration sites.
So, they know how to do this. And I think with the right weapons, they can become more lethal at it. And none of those facilities or bases that I
talked about are -- would trip a nuclear red line, at least from a purely military sense that I am aware of. Politically, of course, it's a Kremlin
decision, but I don't see a military escalation involved in those kind of terms.
AMANPOUR: That's interesting. Now, the last time we talked, you basically was around March time, and you had written, time is running out in Ukraine.
You said, without a surge in Western military aid and major changes to Kyiv's strategy, Ukraine's battlefield position will continue to worsen
until it reaches a tipping point, possibly by summer.
Well, here we are in the summer. Finally, the aid got through. Finally, they did do something different on the battlefield. Is that kind of what
you were anticipating?
MASSICOT: Well, that was written as an alarm to sound where -- if something didn't change soon, they would be facing a summer with continued
weapons shortages, and they would be unable to hold back what was happening. Thankfully, that did not occur. The weapons flowed in very
quickly. They are in the hands of the Ukrainian units now, and they are no longer experiencing those kind of shortages that we were seeing back then.
There's still unresolved manpower problems. The Ukrainians are trying to adjust it on the margins, but there's still some shortages in these units
that are pretty serious. We are not looking at that kind of catastrophic outlook because that aid did come through. And much more needs to probably
continue to come through to make sure that Ukrainian lines do not break under this pressure.
AMANPOUR: Dara Massicot, thank you so much. Former Defense Department analyst. Thank you.
And coming up after the break, high stakes negotiations underway right now in Egypt as stakeholders try to stop all-out war in the Middle East. We'll
take you there.
And then, Trump's former man at the Pentagon on what a second round would mean for the rest of the world. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Welcome back. And we turn now to the violent ripple effects of retaliation in the Middle East. For now, there are efforts to de-escalate
by both sides as Israel launched what it claims were preemptive strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon on Sunday. The scale of that strike is one of
Israel's most significant to date, and it says around a hundred of its citizens fighter jets destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rocket launchers. In
response, Hezbollah says it launched more than 300 rockets and a swarm of drones towards Israel. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said further strikes
could follow.
Now, the situation has been at boiling point since the assassination of a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut last month. Hanging in the balance is not
only a possible wider war, but the fate of the current one in Gaza, as ceasefire and hostage negotiations play out right now in Cairo, where the
U.S. is taking a leading role as usual.
Let's bring you the very latest with Ben Wedeman in Beirut and also Nada Bashir in Cairo.
Nada, I want to go to you first because of the ceasefire talks. I wonder whether there's anything more to report about what's going on and whether
we're any closer.
NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, Christiane, we know that the Hamas delegation departed Cairo on Sunday evening with no major
breakthroughs, but we are expecting working level discussions to continue here in the in Cairo over the coming days.
And we have been hearing notes of optimism from U.S. officials familiar with the ongoing talk, saying that they are making forward progress that
they are now focusing on. And there was the nuts and bolts and the finer details of the deal. But they've also cautioned that while there has been
some progress, this is in no way a guarantee of a final deal at any time soon.
And, Christiane, we know that there are still significant sticking points. In fact, in Hamas' statement yesterday, following the conclusion of those
weekend talks here in Cairo, they reiterated the position that they have held for weeks now, which is one where they want to see a reflection of the
deal presented by U.S. President Joe Biden in late May, a deal which Hamas officials have repeatedly said they agreed to in early July.
And crucially, they are focused on two key areas. Firstly, they would like to see guarantees that after an initial six week pause in the first phase
of this proposed ceasefire proposal, there would be a transition in the second phase to a permanent ceasefire. That has not yet been guaranteed or
endorsed officially by Israeli officials. And in fact, we have heard from members of Netanyahu's coalition, including Netanyahu himself in June
saying that they do wish to see a continuation of the war in order to fully eradicate Hamas' military capabilities. This, despite the fact that U.S.
officials have said, they believe Hamas' military capabilities have now been sufficiently downgraded.
And of course, the other key fundamental issue is questions and terms surrounding the presence of Israeli forces within the Gaza Strip following
this ceasefire implementation. We know that Israel has presented new proposals which would see a reduced number of military posts and Israeli
forces stationed along the Philadelphi Corridor, that buffer zone separating southern Gaza from Egypt.
This is a revised proposal, it is a reduced number, but we have heard from Hamas once again reiterating that they want to see a full withdrawal of
Israeli forces. But of course, these are the public statements from Hamas. Those working level discussions will continue. So, it remains to be seen
whether we see any movement now.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because some of these actual, you know, close up negotiations in Cairo are also aimed at trying to calm the wider
implications, whether it's Hezbollah, whether it's Iran, whatever it is. Is sort of Hezbollah and Iran very much present, whether they, you know,
metaphysically in these negotiations, Nada?
BASHIR: Well, look, this is certainly a focus and a concern for mediators, particularly U.S. officials involved in these talks and negotiations. We've
heard repeatedly now from Hezbollah officials, including Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah just yesterday, reiterating that the tensions that we have
seen mounting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces will not come to an end until there is a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, until we see an end to Israel's
attacks on the Gaza Strip. That has been clearly reiterated by Hezbollah officials
[13:20:00]
But there are concerns that we could see a broadening out of this conflict. That is certainly one of the key reasons why there has been so much
pressure on mediators, on both Hamas and Israel to come to some sort of agreement as soon as possible. And the warning we've repeatedly heard now
from U.S. officials for all sides is not to take any action that would undermine the progress of these talks so far.
AMANPOUR: Let me go -- Nada, thank you so much. Let me just go to Ben, our colleague in Beirut right now. So, Ben, you know, after this, you know,
pretty massive escalation over the weekend, now it appears that all sides are trying to de-escalate. Can you tell us where we are?
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we heard from Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, last night, he said to the
people of Lebanon who have been on edge for the last month, take a breath, you can relax now. And it does appear that, as far as he's concerned,
they've struck back, they've taken revenge for the killing of Fuad Shukr, that senior Hezbollah military commander on the 30th of July.
He did say that they're still assessing the effectiveness of Hezbollah's strikes on targets in Israel yesterday morning, and that if they decide
those were not sufficient damage inflicted upon the Israelis that they will consider a second ways -- a second phase, so to speak.
Now, he was very confident. His tone was very confident and satisfied. He said, we have achieved what we planned. And now, the narrative from Israel
seems to be quite to the contrary, that despite the fact that Nasrallah did say that he struck the headquarters of Mossad, the headquarters of Israel's
signals intelligence unit, the 8200 unit, and the headquarters for the missile defense, that doesn't seem to be the case, but he's saving face.
And it's important to keep in mind that Israel strikes yesterday, the preemptive strikes, were really limited to the border area. They didn't go
deep into Lebanon where it is well known that Hezbollah is actually keeping its heavy -- its long-range missiles, its precision missiles. And
therefore, both sides are continuing to maintain what we can only describe as red lines, that even though Israel has twice struck Beirut in the last
two and a half months, that's only twice, it sometimes strikes deeper inside the Beqaa Valley, but both sides clearly want to avoid a full-scale
war.
I think Israel, because after 10 and a half months of war in Gaza, really might not have the capability for a full-scale war with Hezbollah, and
Hezbollah, because of Lebanon's economic catastrophe that's ongoing, simply cannot afford to drag this country into another full-scale war with Israel.
Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And, Ben, like I asked Nada, you know, the effect of what's happening in Cairo on what's going on, you know, in Beirut and Israel, what
-- likewise, sometimes Hezbollah is striking Israel in order to take pressure off Hamas or to put pressure on the negotiators for Hamas. Was
there any sense that was part of this weekend?
WEDEMAN: Well, we heard from Nasrallah that they took four weeks to strike back at Israel because they wanted to give the talks in Cairo and Doha a
chance at success. Now, that success certainly doesn't seem to be materializing, and we know Hezbollah has made it clear that as soon as the
fighting in Gaza stops, they will stop firing at Israel. But it's not looking very promising.
I know U.S. officials are giving rosy descriptions of the talks that first began in Doha and then continued in Cairo, but the general sense across the
region is that the United States, which in the past, back in 1982, during the Siege of Beirut, Ronald Reagan was able to pressure the Israelis to
stop the bombing and eventually end the war. The same thing in 2006, after 34 days, the George W. Bush administration managed to negotiate
diplomatically an end to the war here.
Still, after -- we're almost 11 months into this war, the U.S. has yet to actually effectively bring the fighting to the end -- to an end. So, the
longer the war in Gaza continues, the darker the specter of much worse hovers over the region. There wouldn't be a war between Israel and
Hezbollah if there was no war in Gaza. Christiane.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Thank you for bringing us up to date. Ben and Nada, unfortunately, we have to leave it there and we'll be right back after this
short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Welcome back. Whoever wins the U.S. presidency in November faces a mountain of foreign policy and domestic issues, we've just been
discussing. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump is still trying to find his footing in response to Kamala Harris' energetic and hopeful campaign
kickoff. Trump's former Pentagon policymaker, Elbridge Colby, has been tipped for a top National Security position if Trump wins, and I recently
asked him to play out a few global scenarios if he does.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Mr. Colby, welcome to the program.
ELBRIDGE COLBY, FORMER PENTAGON OFFICIAL: Great to be with you.
AMANPOUR: Let's start by asking you, you know, what gives you confidence or what do you expect to see in a Trump 2.0 foreign policy? You know, that
for instance, in Asia, in Europe, they're so-called Trump-proofing themselves, you know, to see how it might work. We know that despite his
overtures to North Korea, which I covered, it didn't actually go anywhere in the end. Maximum pressure on Iran didn't work in the way that Trump
wanted it to work. And now, Iran is much closer to breakout possibility than it was before.
So, what gives you the confidence in American global leadership under Donald Trump 2.0?
COLBY: Well, thanks, Christiane. Good to be with you. And just to stress that I don't speak for President Trump or his campaign. But I think I look
at two things in particular. One is the record of results. You pointed to a few things. But if you compare President Trump's record from 2017 and 2021
to the last four years, I think any sensible person would say that things were a lot better under the Trump administration.
You've had the largest war in Europe since the Second World War. It's not going well. You've had the largest attack on the Jewish people since the
Holocaust. You've had the Houthis attack. And you mentioned North Korea, the Biden administration, the situation's gotten a lot worse. And the
military buildup from China has also gotten worse.
And then, I look at what President Trump and Senator Vance are saying, it's a common-sense America. What you call Trump-proofing, I call allies kind of
getting the memo. I mean, what I see from the Biden-Harris administration is a wild disconnect between rhetoric and reality. I mean, endless
highfalutin discussion of the rules-based international order and no limits to American's commitments. And then, you know, a defense budget that isn't
even rising. And on a trajectory to a potentially multi front war.
[13:30:00]
So, we're heading towards the iceberg, and I think if we continue on the current trajectory, we're going to ram right into it. I think the Trump-
Vance agenda offers us a very good way of avoiding World War III in a way that protects our interests.
AMANPOUR: So, what about the points for action then? I mean, President Trump has said to Bloomberg that that, you know, that Taiwan would have to
basically pay for American protection. He said, consider us like an insurance policy or an insurance company. And, you know, he's very
transactional over NATO and the like. And it kind of -- as you can imagine, it gives allies sort of the heebie-jeebies, it makes them wonder, you know,
who will come to their rescue.
What should allies take from all of this? I mean, should Taiwan be forced to pay for American protection?
COLBY: Well, look, I mean, fundamentally -- let me go back to something, which is that our military perimeter around the world, all the same people
who are talking about how dangerous China, Russia, Iran, North Korea are, are also, in a sense, allowing an incredibly dangerous situation to
perpetuate, which is under spending by our allies.
Let's baseline something here, Christiane, neither presidential campaign is running on dramatic increases in defense spending, right, by the United
States, and we know our defense industrial base should be fixed, and that's a key part of the Republican platform, but it's not -- it has not been
fixed. So, there's a wild gap between what we're promising.
And to your point about the heebie-jeebies, they should be more than heebie-jeebies, they should be very scared. What we need to get over is not
the Cold War legacy of America. In the Cold War, we were quite tough on our allies and we expected them to do their part. It's the post-Cold War hubris
after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Taiwan's a perfect example. Taiwan is a country, President Trump is absolutely right, it's right next to China. It's a country of 1.4 billion
people that's in a historic military buildup, where the president of that country, and it seems a lot of the population, are pretty focused on
forcibly unifying that, you know, Taiwan, if necessary. And Taiwan's spending less than 3 percent of GDP on defense.
So, those who are allowing that situation to perpetuate are actually doing more harm. You know what the thing is, Christian? Europeans are getting the
memo.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you then, because, you know, you do make a distinction between prioritizing the China policy over the Ukraine policy,
and you have said, frankly, that if Taiwan does fall, it would, you know, send a very bad signal about American global leadership. What if Ukraine
falls to Russia? Would that send the same bad signal?
COLBY: Well, a couple of things. Let's step back for a second. One, China is clearly our biggest rival. So, you know, and the nature of our priority
is you got to -- and it's all relative. We're doing better than we were five -- you know, 10 years ago. But China's really -- you know, China's got
200 times the shipbuilding capacity in the United States. They're actively working to improve their military forces for, you know, something -- it
could be in the coming years, God forbid. So, that's got to be our primary rival.
Second, Europe -- Asia is now the world's primary theater. It's the primary market area. It's going to be upwards of 50 percent of global GDP. Europe
remains important, but it's less important. Russia, I think there's a lot of sort of, extreme dialogue or sort of discussion on one side or the
other, either that Russia is 1945 Joseph Stalin, or it's a joke.
I think the Russians are a serious threat. I don't think it would be in our interest for Ukraine to be totally occupied, but the Russians are making
incremental progress in Eastern Ukraine. My solution to this, getting back to what we were just saying, is really letting Europeans get -- know and
get the memo that, you know, you got to take the lead in supporting Ukraine. I'm in favor of supporting Ukraine, it's just got to be done by
them.
We have to fix our situation, which is much more consequential and dangerous in the Western Pacific, and we have to recognize the reality of
scarcity. And that's what I don't see at all. In fact, if I look at Vice President Harris, I say to myself, it's completely absent from the
dialogue. Whereas, I think, President Trump is saying, we may be on the world -- the verge of World War III. I think, God forbid, that's correct.
The right way to handle that is strength, yes, but also realism about our situation and using our military sparingly as the platform says.
AMANPOUR: As you know, the Democrats have been talking about democracy and, you know, the rules of the road is, as we mentioned at the beginning
of this interview. And President Trump has made, you know, quite a show, quite a point of being more aligned or very, you know, praiseworthy of
people like the Hungarian prime minister, who at best is termed an illiberal Democrat. He said, there's nobody that's better, smarter, or a
better leader than Viktor Orban. He's fantastic. He's a great leader.
You know, people talk about his admiration for Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and of course, wanting to make a deal which would have been great had it
happened with Kim Jong Un. But what should the American people take from the people who Trump sort of naturally gravitates to?
COLBY: Well, look, I think, Christiane, this is a really important point. I think Trump is in -- President Trump is in the tradition of a certain
type of American statecraft. President Eisenhower, President Nixon, President Reagan even talked to Mikhail Gorbachev, who was of course the
dictator of the Soviet Union at the time. And this is something President Trump has stressed.
[13:35:00]
I think you're right that from the Biden-Harris administration, we have a real emphasis on ideological conformity. Here's the point. I think what the
idea here is, our foreign policy should be hardnosed and realistic and realism is better and, frankly, more moral than moralism. Nobody doubts
Tony Blinken's sincerity, but I think it's reasonable to doubt the success of that policy.
You can play guitar in Kyiv, but the war is still going on. The war happened -- it didn't happen under President Trump's administration. And
the same goes for dealing with people like Xi Jinping. You know, I'm very hardline in some ways on China, but I think it's good that our president be
able to talk to foreign leaders who may be adversaries. As I think Jim Baker used to say, if you just talk to your friends, you're not doing
diplomacy. You got to talk to your enemies too.
AMANPOUR: So, on the idea of hardnosed policy, there have been a lot of hardnosed defense and National Security officials in the first Trump
administration who are coming out against him now. I mean, they're coming out against him and they say he's -- you know, he's not up to the task and
foreign policy shouldn't be put in his hands. Why do you think they're saying that?
COLBY: Look, I'll put this in a broader context that I think President Trump and Senator Vance have talked about. The National Security
establishment doesn't necessarily like what President Trump and Senator Vance are saying. But my view is the National Security establishment has
not done a very good job over the last 30 or 35 years.
I was at an event in the United Kingdom a couple weeks ago, and somebody said, hey, we need more consistency out of the United States and out of a,
you know, future Republican administration. I said, well, our policy has not been successful for the American people. Deindustrialization, failed
wars, global financial crisis, massive, you know, failure on the border, et cetera. We need to have a change. And that's going to involve pretty
significant reform.
And of course, President Trump and Senator Vance are arguing for something different, something much more common-sense, more aligned with what the
American people's interests actually are, what their resources are, you know, what they're prepared to sacrifice for and expecting more for our
allies.
So, actually, I don't -- you know, to me, I take some of these, like Bolton's criticism, I would say, it's a badge of honor that he's in
opposition to the campaign.
AMANPOUR: Elbridge Colby, thank you very much indeed, and we will continue to check in with you. Thanks for being with us.
COLBY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: We'll be right back. A visit to the theater after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next, a timeless story of migration, poverty, and hope. "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck has enthralled readers since it was
released nearly a hundred years ago and a new stage version at the National Theatre here in London makes it more relevant than ever. The story follows
the Joad family during the Great Depression as they're forced to escape unemployment and the Dust Bowl and drive their wagons to California in
search of something better.
The director of this adaptation, Carrie Cracknell, and one of its stars, Cherry Jones, came here into the studio to discuss how this classic has a
modern and universal resonance.
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Carrie Cracknell, Cherry Jones, welcome to the program. This is an epic. It's John Steinbeck, everybody knows this, or everybody who's got
-- you know, who's done their literature, certainly in the United States.
Can I just start by asking about the first scene, which everybody is writing about and talking about? So, it's one where you use big, I think,
wind blowers and you've got bungee jump -- bungee cords as you perform this epic struggle against essentially the Dust Bowl. What was it like being in
that scene?
CHERRY JONES, ACTRESS, "THE GRAPES OF WRATH": Well, I'm not in the bungee part of the scene. But after the storm settles, Carrie has the entire cast
walk front and just observe the devastation. And you see in -- hopefully in our faces, that this is the beginning of people who are forced on a
journey.
AMANPOUR: How did you come up with this imagery to evoke this journey?
CARRIE CRACKNELL, DIRECTOR, "THE GRAPES OF WRATH": We wanted to, I guess, evoke the scale and the kind of enormity of the disruption and the sense of
this being a story about, you know, humanity pitted against the elements. And Ira Mandela, who was the movement director and I worked, you know, in a
workshop with lots of the actors looking at different images to try and kind of express, I guess, that idea of, you know, what happens when man is
sort of forced against the elements. And so, that's what we try to evoke in that opening.
And then, as the whole company come on, I guess we're looking at this idea of a whole community, you know, observing their world disrupted and that's
the originating event that sort of sets the whole story in motion.
AMANPOUR: Was there any time that either of you felt daunted taking on a play that had been written? I mean, certainly evoking the 1930s and the
depression and the Dust Bowl and all of that. What was it about that attracted both of you, first of all you, to directing something like that?
CRACKNELL: I mean, the novel is iconic and it sort of sits, I think, in a lot of people's imagination. It was a book I read really early and had
always sort of stayed with me. And then, I read the adaptation by Frank Galati, which was written in the late '80s, and I found that he had really
captured the kind of central story. And it's this beautiful articulation, I think, of how people remain their best in -- while enduring the worst
circumstances. And it felt so contemporary in terms of the relationship to, you know, how many people are on the move across the world globally now.
It's a migration story. It's about a family trying to stay intact as they lose each other. They lose their way. They -- you know, they suffer kind of
unimaginable cruelty, but they somehow remain good and remain fine and try and kind of hold on to their nobility and that felt so resonant in terms of
where we find ourselves now, I think.
AMANPOUR: And for you, Cherry, what do you think of when you think of the historic, you know, story and today, where we are today?
JONES: Well, I mean, just beginning with the Dust Bowl, it was both climate and over farming. So, it was both created by climate and man, which
is very much where we are, of course, today, and have been for a number of decades already. But I was afraid to do the part because it is the mother
of a group of refugees and migrants and the people who at their most vulnerable from the beginning of time finally get to where they're going
and they're hated. And that's the way it's been forever.
And we're a migratory species, you know. And we've always been migrating. And we will continue to migrate for any number of dreadful reasons.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to play a clip which actually shows you the matriarch in conversation with your son, Tom, in the story, about the this turmoil
and this travel and what it's done to uproot, not just you, but everybody who was migrating from, I guess, Oklahoma, you were in the story, to the
west, trying to get to California, which you thought was going to be, you know, Shangri La.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: They say that there are a hundred thousand of us shoved out. If we was all mad the same ways, Tommy, they were not nobody down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ma, he never was like this before.
JONES: I never had my house pushed over. Never had my family stuck out on the road. Never had to sell everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:45:00]
AMANPOUR: It's very powerful. And you play Ma Joad, the matriarch, and the stoic and trying to keep your family, you know, surviving and uplifted. How
difficult was it and is it playing that character in this long play, it's three hours or so, every day, sometimes twice?
JONES: It's thrilling.
AMANPOUR: I thought you were going to say brutal.
JONES: It is brutal, but it's thrilling. But we are with a group of 27 mostly very young actors. And it is the thrill of our lives to go out and
tell this story. I couldn't imagine how we'd ever get through a two-show day. But it is it is such a privilege to go out there every night. And at
the end of the play, feel the audience having been truly transported in a way you rarely get to take.
AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you, Carrie, whether, you know, the audience reaction, and I suppose people who come to the theater have a different
reaction, maybe than society at large, but in this world that we live, not just in the United States, but here in the U.K., it's a real living drama,
the idea of migration, the idea of crisis and climate driving people here. I mean, it's caused huge political turmoil, huge turmoil in the streets,
frankly, with the riots we've just seen, that they blamed wrongly on a migrant coming over. It wasn't a migrant at all.
Did the political situation worry you at all? Did you think it might have some kind of backlash or negative reception?
CRACKNELL: We weren't worried about the political backlash. I think, you know, the story feels really connected to now. And I think the best stories
do. And there's a reason often that you go back to pieces because they feel completely interwoven in your contemporary experience. And what's beautiful
about this piece is it's very specific about the historical moment and the cultural moment that it lives within. But the material is huge and it
connects with people in a really deep way.
So, politics, of course, comes into the work and it drives why you choose - - you know, it drives your lens as a director and it drives your choices. But ultimately, we can't control an audience's experience. You know, people
come each night and they meet the work and I think are really transformed and transported by it. And something quite strange happens at the end each
evening, which is that there is a kind of processing, you know, an audience are trying to understand what they've just been through and what they've
experienced, and it takes a beat. And that I find incredibly moving to watch.
AMANPOUR: Well, the last scene is really very dramatic, right? I mean, it's a mother who offers her own breast to a grown man who's poverty
stricken and --
JONES: Starving to death.
AMANPOUR: -- starving to death, and she --
JONES: Literally.
AMANPOUR: And her newborn baby has died. So, she's got milk and he needs sustenance. That's an incredible scene for Steinbeck to have written and
fuel to play on stage.
CRACKNELL: It's a really unusual image because it's something that most people have never seen, and actually that's really rare because it sort of
profoundly upends all of the things that we think about. You know, nurturing and motherhood and feeding and the sort of organic natural
quality of that and it feels at once shocking and horrifying but also, profoundly empowering for both of them.
And Mirren Mack who plays Rose of Sharon and Ryan Ellsworth who plays the man sort of have approached it with such truth, haven't they, and an
intensity. And you know, it's quite a hard thing to play each night, but I think they get a lot of nourishment actually from it.
JONES: I remember that you told me that you were asked more than once while you wanted to do this play and you said, because it's about kindness,
and that final moment is the ultimate act of kindness and grace. Yes.
AMANPOUR: It's also -- Cherry, and you're the American here, it's about yearning for the American dream. It's about the history of America, which
is a story of immigration and migration. And it's about maternal protection and nourishment, right? Nurturing.
Did you have to draw deep on that? I mean, some of your films and series have been very much different, right? I mean, you played in the "Handmaid's
Tale," Succession," I mean, a much more hard, bitter, cynical kind of body of work.
JONES: I'm not a mother. So, that's already a disadvantage to play Ma Joad.
AMANPOUR: Well, then it's really acting.
JONES: But I come from a tremendous line of strong southern women. I grew up in Tennessee. So, I go back and I think of my grandmother and my great-
grandmother and my great-great-grandmother and my great-great-great- grandmother, whose name was Dicey Reasons (ph). And I think of all of these women and what they went through. And I love the kindness, the joy, the
curiosity of Ma.
[13:50:00]
But I love, there's a -- there's -- it's not in the play, but there's a line in Steinbeck, where the husband is saying that they need to separate
the family to be able to succeed. And she takes a crowbar, and she says, if you do that, I will strike you dead, and I -- if I don't kill you now, one
day, when you least expect it, I will hit you over the head and you'll be dead.
I mean, so she has this unbelievable fury and anger, which is where Tom Joad, gets it. I mean, he leaves at the end of the play to go out and --
AMANPOUR: Your son.
JONES: -- right the wrongs.
AMANPOUR: So, much of that -- even as everything you're saying resonates with politics in America today. I discuss a little bit of world and U.K.
politics on this issue with Carrie, but in the United States right now, you know, in the political conversation, we've just had the Democratic
Convention, family is at stake, the American dream is at stake, change is at stake. Pitting one side of humanity against another. All of these
resonate. I wonder what you think about it coming at this moment in presidential politics.
JONES: Well, that's a really large question, Christiane, and you're known for them.
AMANPOUR: Or a long question. I wish I wasn't known for them.
JONES: No, it absolutely is -- obviously, the border is a huge part of the conversation now. But it -- that we're split, it seems we are at -- we're
50/50 now in our country. And we don't understand each other anymore. And I think it was certainly in the 1930s when my mama used to say we were -- the
country was either going to remain a democracy, it would become a fascistic country or a communist country. And it was really the cult of personality
of FDR that we remained a democracy. And I'm hoping we'll have a successful cult of personality this time that saves us yet again.
AMANPOUR: Things are certainly all shifting. You said, when I left, this is you -- this is at the start of July, you said, when I left America a
couple of months ago, I left a country where there were no kings. Now, I'll be returning to a country where every president has the right to do
whatever they want to do. Yes.
JONES: Astonishing. Thanks to the Supreme Court and a man who had one term being able to nominate three justices. It's unbelievable. I mean, Obama had
what, one, and he would have had two if the Senate hadn't blocked him.
Presidents are gone now. There was an honor. Our forefathers thought that presidents would remain forever, because people would remain reasonably
honorable. And that is now gone, and that's why we're in such grave jeopardy.
AMANPOUR: And that idea of honor shines through the family, the Joad family.
CRACKNELL: Yes. And I mean, there's a beautiful line that Cherry has where she -- where Ma says, you know, we've never refused anybody a meal, a lift
on the road if they've asked for it. And I think there's something really profound about that idea of, you know, being expansive and open and trying
to support each other, the sort of growth and strength that comes from solidarity. And that's absolutely at the center of the piece.
AMANPOUR: And is it -- there have been some -- you know, some commentary that it is, A, long, and B, very much faithful to the original track, that
it hasn't been updated, it hasn't, you know, veered from the original track, and Frank Galati's original adaptation. How do you answer that?
CRACKNELL: I mean, the novel is vast and huge, and it's a road movie in a way, you know. And so, we try to evoke that on stage. And I think what's
interesting about it is it kind of veers from the tiny human moments, the very, very contained emotional landscape of a -- you know, a son and his
mother, or a small group kind of, you know, conversations together to these big, vast moments where you're trying to evoke the American landscape.
And so, you know, I don't feel night to night that the audience feels it's long, it feels huge. But I sense that the way that it's being played really
kind of connects and grips with the audience as they move through it each evening. And I don't think it could be any shorter, actually. And actually,
it's two hours 45. It's getting shorter by the night.
JACKSON: The first act is 1:12 and the second act is 1:07, but there's a 20-minute intermission.
AMANPOUR: Do you think, finally, you're going to take this on the road? It's a road -- roadie play, but are you going to take it to New York?
You're going to take it elsewhere?
CRACKNELL: We'd love it to have a future life, but it's a huge production, you know. And it's the kind of production that can be staged at the
National Theatre because of the -- you know, the scale of that building. So, I think there would be some very real questions about how we would
compress it a bit to give it a future life.
[13:55:00]
But I think we all feel very sort of alive and nourished by the work at the moment and the connection that it's having each evening.
JONES: And it just grows stronger every single day. I wish anyone who saw it earlier on could come back and see it now because something this large
has to marinate and marinate, and we're just getting to that glorious place as a company where you're surprised, and not only in your fellow players,
but also in the things that they're -- Mirren Mack just about did me in last night, and she said it as we went off and we were in the wing, she
turned around, as Rose of Sharon, and said something that cut me to the quick. And, you know, that's where we are now.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell us what it was?
JONES: I cannot. I haven't told Mirren Mack what it was. But she continued our scene and -- well, no, there's no point in going into it, but it just
destroyed me and it was so right.
AMANPOUR: Well, that is a cliffhanger. We'll have to go.
JACKSON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: It's got three more weeks to run.
CRACKNELL: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Until September 14th. Fantastic. Thank you both very much.
JONES: Thank you, thank you.
CRACKNELL: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, to a red hot festival in the Netherlands, where an invite is guaranteed as long as your hair is the right color. More than
10,000 people turned out for the annual Redhead Days Festival, with dancing, photo shoots, and workshops. Organizers say it's a celebration of
connection, pride, and recognition for those with those natural amber looks. And they only make up 2 percent of the world's population, 1 or 2
percent. A very small number.
That's it for now. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
