Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Norwegian Nobel Committee Chair Jorgen Frydnes; Interview with Former NATO Secretary General and Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen; Interview with "Cutting Through Rocks" Director Mohammadreza Eyni; Interview with "Cutting Through Rocks" Director Sara Khaki; Interview with NYU Stern School of Business Professor and "The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway" Host Scott Galloway. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 11, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
A horrifying report from Iran. Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi says she's been severely beaten behind bars. We bring you the troubling
details.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Greenland is very important to the national security of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- a turning point in transatlantic history. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who led Denmark and NATO, joins me from Washington.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We're all going to vote for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "Cutting Through Rocks," the Oscar-nominated documentary on the first woman ever elected to local office in her region of Iran. The fierce
backlash that followed.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND HOST, "THE PROF G POD WITH SCOTT GALLOWAY": This is a high-impact way to send a message
and you might save some money along the way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Resist and Unsubscribe." Podcaster and NYU professor Scott Galloway tells Hari Sreenivasan why he's calling on Americans to protest
immigration policies by unplugging from big tech.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
47 years ago today, Iran was declared an Islamic Republic after a year-long revolution that toppled a shah and sent shockwaves throughout the world.
And this anniversary sees the regime in its fiercest fight yet for its own survival. Its supporters were out on the streets today waving flags and
portraits of the supreme leader. The scenes are a far cry from the ones we saw last month though, when hundreds of thousands of Iranians rose up in
protest, demanding change before authorities brutally cracked down.
The government itself admits to more than 3,000 deaths, but the real number could be in the tens of thousands, according to human rights groups. Today,
President Masoud Pezeshkian apologized for some of the government's faults, but not for the killings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASOUD PEZESHKIAN, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): As the head of the government, I apologize to the noble people for the shortcomings that
exist. Despite these shortcomings and deficiencies, we in the government are making every effort, with all our strength, to resolve all these
problems firmly and resolutely. And by God's power and under the wise leadership of the supreme leader, we will do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Of course, the supreme leader and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps wield the real power, and so the crackdown continues. Tens of
thousands of Iranians have been arrested since the protest, even doctors who had treated the wounded. The message, do not do this again.
Indeed, the violence and intimidation continues inside the prisons. Detained Nobel Peace Prize winner Narges Mohammadi has been viciously
assaulted, according to the Nobel Committee. It says it has credible reports detailing Mohammadi's arrest, physical abuse, and ongoing life-
threatening mistreatment. And it adds that it is horrified by these acts, and reiterates that Ms. Mohammadi's imprisonment is arbitrary and unjust.
Now, the head of the Nobel Committee, Jorgen Frydnes, is joining us from Oslo. Welcome to the program. I mean, you use particularly strong language,
horrified, and you have described some really untenable violence that she's undergoing. Can you tell me what you know and what you have discovered?
JORGEN FRYDNES, CHAIR, NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMMITTEE: Thank you for having me. The reports of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi are, in fact,
horrifying. The credible reports is about being beaten repeatedly with wooden sticks and batons, being dragged across the ground, parts of her
scalp being teared out of her head, causing open wounds, repeatedly kicked in the pelvis, in the genitals, leaving her unable to sit, unable to live
normally, with severe pain.
[13:05:00]
And at the same time, the heavy interrogations have continued, the intimidation have continued, and she continues to be denied adequate
sustained medical assistance. So, this is consequently cruel and inhumane treatment, a blatant violation of international human rights law.
AMANPOUR: In the meantime, we have received a statement from her husband, who is himself a political activist. He is outside of Iran. His name is
Taghi Rahmani. And he has written, Narges Mohammadi, a human rights defender, was savagely beaten and arrested with shocking and excessive
violence. For years, both inside prison and outside, Narges has done nothing but advocate for justice and human dignity. It is clear that this
violence is deliberate, an attempt to intimidate her, silence her and force her to abandon her work. This treatment is cruel, unlawful and utterly
indefensible.
I mean, you're saying some of the same things, but your reaction to her own husband, I mean, it was her children who had to accept her Nobel because
she couldn't come out of Iran last year. And I just wonder what you think about what he said.
FRYDNES: Well, we totally agree with Mr. Rahmani, that this is inhumane treatment. It's been going on for a long time. But we, as all other
international observers, have observed the unlawful mass killings also in the last couple of weeks. And we see this brutal repression that followed
the mass protests as another grim example of the repression from the regime. And the treatment of Narges Mohammadi is being increased in the
last weeks.
So, this is worrisome. And we definitely worry that she will not be able to live any longer. She has heart disease. She has medical needs, which is not
being taken care of.
AMANPOUR: You know, Mr. Frydnes, talking about her health, I interviewed her when she was given a brief sort of medical furlough. And she spoke then
about how she was kicked in the chest despite her known heart and other in -- you know, weaknesses. And so, it's important that you point out how
grave danger she's in.
But have you, as the Nobel Committee, spoken to, conveyed your concern, and as you said, the fact that you consider this horrifying, to the Iranian
government? What can you actually do, if anything?
FRYDNES: Of course, that is the most important question. Of course, we have to appeal to the regime in Tehran to take -- uphold international law
and to uphold their -- to not have the violation of these laws, but also to appeal to the International Community to persist in its effort to ensure
that Ms. Mohammadi's safety is taken care of and to uphold the universal principle for which she so bravely stands for.
So, this is a call both to the regime in Iran, but also to the International Community to put pressure on them so that Ms. Mohammadi's
safety is taken care of.
AMANPOUR: Let me -- because she is an incredibly brave person, and she has endured a lot of prison time, and the violence that you're now recounting.
She -- when I spoke to her, said that despite the dangers, she was absolutely committed to keeping on fighting for democracy. This is what she
told me from Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARGES MOHAMMADI, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE: Not even the prison walls and all these convictions can ever stop me. And I feel that alongside the
Iranian people, I have to go towards democracy and equality, and I hope that we will see victory. And it may not be an easy path, but I am
determined in my belief because of the conditions that exist in my country, Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, this is a very, very brave champion for human rights. She's obviously continues to play out exactly the reason you awarded her the
Nobel Prize. What do you think this kind of -- and apparently according to her children, the maltreatment of her increased after she was awarded the
prize. What does it say to you about that prize?
[13:10:00]
Sometimes I know people are concerned if we spotlight some of these people who are in danger, maybe it makes things worse for them. On the other hand,
it also gives them, I suppose, a platform and international recognition.
FRYDNES: You're correctly, that is always a very difficult part of the decision making for who should be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Because yes, you say it could both protect you, but it could also highlight the dangers.
For Ms. Mohammadi, she has been a steadfast human rights defender for many, many years. She has taken those risks many years also before being awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize. But she continues to stand for what she believes in, women, life, freedom, for democracy of the people in Iran. And we've seen
now how countless of women and men have risked their lives to demand the same things, freedom, equality, basic human rights in Iran for a long time,
but not least the last couple of weeks. And the reaction from the regime has been brutal.
AMANPOUR: We were, as you were speaking, seeing images of the Nobel ceremony when she was awarded, and it was her children who accepted it for
her. Afterwards, I spoke to her daughter, Kiana, and this is what she told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIANA RAHMANI, NARGES MOHAMMADI'S DAUGHTER (through translator): The last time I saw my mother was when I was nine years old, which was in 2015. That
was the last time I saw her. So, it has been about eight years that I've not physically been in her presence. And it's been two years since I last
heard anything from her. Phone calls have been absolutely blocked, officially, for quite a while. They keep on adding these extra months of
sentence, as you say, after she received the Nobel Peace Prize, because the government now sees her as even more of a threat. They are finding new ways
to silence her as much as possible and to isolate her from all contact with the outside world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Mr. Frydnes, that was even before what's happened to her right now. Can I just ask you, how did you get word of her current
condition and the violence that's been meted out to her in prison?
FRYDNES: Well, of course, we do have close contact with the family. It's important also to say that we need to support her children, which were in
Oslo, and to receive the prize on her behalf. These are from credible reports within Iran. Of course, I cannot say who they are, because of their
safety. But we are receiving credible reports about this brutal arrest, about the physical abuse, and about the ongoing situation of Ms. Mohammadi.
AMANPOUR: OK. Finally, President Trump is constantly talking about how he should be awarded the Nobel Prize. I'm obviously not going to ask you about
that. But he is currently having talks in Washington with the Israeli Prime Minister. Most people think it's about what to do, maybe a military strike
on Iran. But the fact is, you just said that the International Community should uphold and put as a central plank human rights. I don't know whether
you agree, but they've never done that about Iran.
In the 47 years of this republic, all they've talked about is nuclear and terrorism. I wonder whether you think that that is a big deficiency in the
policy towards Iran.
FRYDNES: Well, our role is not to talk about what the policy of different countries should be. However, we appeal to the International Community,
whoever is in contact with the Iranian regime, that they should uphold the rule of law, should uphold the safety of protesters, and for this case,
first and foremost, also the safety and the well-being of our Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Narges Mohammadi.
So, to talk about these violations is necessary. And to demand the unconditional and immediate release of Narges Mohammadi should also be part
of those discussions.
AMANPOUR: Well, Jorgen Frydnes, the head of the Nobel Committee, thank you so much for putting this very important issue front and center and alerting
the world. And of course, we are reaching out to the Iranian government for a response to all of these allegations.
Coming up, a midwife in rural Iran defying the regime's restrictions on women, that's the focus of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Cutting Through
Rocks." I speak to its directors.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Demolition man, that is what European security experts are calling President Trump. In this year's Munich security report ahead of the
annual conference, its authors say that we are in an era of, quote, "wrecking ball politics," with, quote, "The U.S.-led post-1945
international order now under destruction."
Let's bring in NATO's former Secretary General and former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen from Washington. Welcome to the program.
You're in Washington and you're about to go to Munich. Let me just ask you, does that language strike you as pretty correct, destruction, wrecking ball
politics, demolition man?
ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL AND FORMER DANISH PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think it's a correct description of the current
state of affairs. I'm very much concerned about the threat towards the transatlantic alliance, and my conclusion is clear, Europe must step up to
the plate. We need to be able to stand on our own feet in Europe.
AMANPOUR: How? Can you tell me? Because that's what Trump's allies say. They say, well, look, we're just stating the obvious, that Europe actually
needs to pay more, do more after these 80 years for its own security and defense and prosperity.
RASMUSSEN: It's across the board. I fully agree with the French President Macron, who stated that Europe is in a state of security emergency. That's
actually a very precise description of the current situation. We have to shift gear. Europe must be a superpower militarily, economically,
politically, if we are to be taken seriously in Washington, in Moscow and in China.
AMANPOUR: So, you were obviously Danish prime minister, but also head of the NATO, the Transatlantic Military Defense Alliance. I remember every
time certain mostly French or German presidents used to talk about having a European army, the United States would say, no, no, no, no, we don't need
that. Is there a little bit of a sort of, now they say we do need it, and perhaps Europe isn't as prepared as it should be?
RASMUSSEN: I think we need to strengthen the European pillar within NATO. I do believe that NATO will remain the cornerstone of European and North
Atlantic security. But within NATO, we should strengthen the European pillar, centered around a coalition of the willing, a number of European
countries capable and willing to do what is needed to defend ourselves in Europe.
AMANPOUR: Is that because you don't think the United States -- I mean, I think you just said you think it'll, you know, stay in NATO and it's not
going to pull out. But there seems to be a rift and a lack of trust now, particularly the Greenland episode has concentrated a lot of minds.
[13:20:00]
Let me just quote this from the MSC report. Ironically, the president of the United States, the country that did more than any other to shape the
post-1945 international order, is now the most prominent of the demolition men. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the post-war
international order is now under destruction.
We talked a little bit about those words, but the President of the United States is very powerful. He runs a very powerful country, a very powerful
military, and is able to essentially have his way. How do you come to a sort of a meeting of the minds? Because it's not just about, you know,
paying more for your defense. He's interfering in European politics. He's, you know, using trade as a punitive and tariffs as a punitive weapon. How
do you deal with this kind of president?
RASMUSSEN: I think time has come to stand up against President Trump. There are limitations to his room of maneuver. I met members of Congress,
and I see there is a strong bipartisan support for NATO, for the Transatlantic Alliance. There is a strong bipartisan opposition to
attacking Greenland. In the American people, there is only a small minority that supports that aggressive action. And when President Trump threatened
to impose extra tariffs on European countries that did not support his request to require Greenland, the Europeans decided, we are fed up with
that behavior. We will unite. And they delivered a collective response to Trump. So, there are limitations to his power. Time for flattering is over.
AMANPOUR: Well, I was going to ask you that, because this whole last year has been one of flattery, appeasement, trying to, you know, jolly him along
and, you know, sort of make sure that he doesn't put even more tariffs on them. Do you think the Greenland issue then was a major turning point that
will stick, that was a red line that they recognized and realized that they actually have to stand up because otherwise they're going to get rolled?
RASMUSSEN: Exactly. I think Greenland was a turning point. One thing is the Europeans decided to stand up against Trump, but also on the U.S. side,
reasonable voices told the president that it would be crazy politics to militarily attack a NATO ally. There would be no support in Congress, no
support in American people. I think even in the American military, there were doubts that would be a legal order. So, it was a turning point.
Previously, President Xi Jinping also demonstrated that to stand up against Trump pays. The only thing Trump respects is power and a firm stance.
AMANPOUR: Let me first ask you about Ukraine because one of the other motifs of this year has been Donald Trump essentially treating, for the
most part, the president of Ukraine as the adversary and the president of Russia as somehow, you know, the whatever, the ally. I realize there are
negotiations and all sorts of things going on right now.
You're in Washington. Do you see any breakthrough that we might want to know about? Because as you know, President Zelenskyy, according to the FT,
has said that, you know, he's willing to have elections, a referendum on any peace deal once it's agreed.
RASMUSSEN: Yes, I think President Zelenskyy has demonstrated a clear willingness to move to get a peace deal or a ceasefire. And I don't
understand why the American administration continues to put more pressure on Zelenskyy than on President Putin. I have discussed that issue while
I've been in Washington.
As an example, there is a proposal in Congress, a bipartisan bill to impose strong sanctions on Russia, but that bill hasn't moved forward. And I find
it quite disappointing and embarrassing that we are not able to put more pressure on Putin.
[13:25:00]
The fact is, Putin has no incentive to engage in constructive peace negotiations as long as he believes he can win on the battlefield. We have
to change his calculus by putting more pressure on him economically and militarily.
AMANPOUR: So, then let me ask you, because there's been word that some European leaders are talking about direct engagement with Putin again,
because they don't want to be cut out of any negotiations that are happening purely with the United States and Russia. So, do you think that's
a good idea? I mean, if Europe did engage, would that -- could that up the pressure?
RASMUSSEN: Well, of course, it's always reasonable to talk with people, but I have noted that the Kremlin has refused to accept the stationing of
troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian soil. It's not for Russia to deal with that. We decide ourselves if we want to deploy troops in Ukraine, but
if Russia doesn't accept that we can deploy troops in Ukraine if we so wish, then I don't see any reason to have talks with Russia.
AMANPOUR: And finally, you're in Washington. The prime minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, is there meeting with President Trump. All the word is that
they're talking mostly about Iran. And I wonder what you think, because certainly many regional allies have been telling President Trump that they
cannot afford another war in that region. What do you think is on the horizon?
RASMUSSEN: First of all, let me say I really admire the Iranian women and all Iranians that are protesting against the current regime in Tehran. And
second, I hope that President Trump strategy to put military pressure actually on the regime in Tehran, while at the same time trying to move
forward on negotiations will materialize not only in a nuclear deal with Iran, but also a broader deal to cut Iranian financing of the proxies, the
Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, et cetera. And finally, also to put pressure on the Iranian regime to respect human rights.
AMANPOUR: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO chief and former prime minister of Denmark, thank you very much indeed for being with us.
Now, back to Iran. A new documentary lays bare the challenges faced by ordinary Iranian women under the Islamic regime, as shown by the
experiences of one extraordinary person. "Cutting Through Rocks" follows Sarah Shahverdi, a midwife in a village in rural Iran who continually
defies the conservative restrictions on women. She aims to become the first female counselor elected in her part of the country, and once elected to
bring about change and progress to her community. But it is an enormous, possibly impossible task.
Now, this is the first Iranian documentary ever to be nominated for an Oscar, and its directors, Mohammadreza Eyni and Sara Khaki are joining the
program from Los Angeles. Welcome to the program. It's great to see you. It's a wonderful, wonderful documentary, and it shows a whole other side of
Iran and the challenges of ordinary people.
Tell me why you decided to pick this woman in that part of the country. It's way to the Northwest. Let me ask you first, Mohammadreza.
MOHAMMADREZA EYNI, DIRECTOR, "CUTTING THROUGH ROCKS": Yes, thank you, Christiane. We are so happy to be here and talk about the film. Actually,
this story started with Sarah Khaki here.
AMANPOUR: I should have asked her first.
EYNI: I was in Tehran.
AMANPOUR: Go ahead.
EYNI: Yes, no worries. I can say that I was in Tehran. I'm coming from the community, Northwest of Iran, Azeri-speaking community, and I have a lot of
knowledge about the stories that are happening in the film. But for me, as a male director, to go there and make an intimate film about women was not
possible. So, I needed someone like Sarah, and I'm happy that Sara one day called me and told me about this story and asked me to go and work on this
film, "Cutting Through Rocks."
AMANPOUR: So, Sara, tell me about --
SARA KHAKI, DIRECTOR, "CUTTING THROUGH ROCKS": Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Tell me about the heart of this woman. Sarah, she's also named that, your subject. Tell me about her, what her life was, and what
change she was trying to bring.
[13:30:00]
KHAKI: So, basically, when I got a hold of her through extensive research, I found out that I was faced with a tenacious individual who was trying to
-- who had already done so much in her community by being a midwife and delivering 400 kids, by being the only female motorcycle rider in the
Northwest of Iran. And so, she told me that she's thinking about running for a council seat. And of course, there were a lot of opponents along her
way, and she wasn't sure if she would ever be elected. But luckily, those that she delivered were 18-year-old first-time voters, and she was able to
receive a lot of support from men and women, both young teenagers, who wanted her to be elected.
AMANPOUR: OK, that's amazing. I hadn't really clocked that it actually was the kids who had delivered her, you know, who came out. But let's show this
little clip of her sort of campaigning, driving her car, and she's getting a lot of support from the streets. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Hope we can celebrate together. We just voted. We voted only for you. Just for you. Only Sara.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They're going to vote too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Me and my family voted for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's very heartwarming. Mohammadreza, let me ask you, because she does get elected and it is amazing, and she gets, you know,
it's very celebratory. But then she starts facing pushback, particularly from the men who maybe didn't believe that she was actually going to be a
counselor and take all the rights, including having the seal, the stamp that you need to officiate an official document. Tell me about that part of
it and how you were able to cover that.
EYNI: Of course, it's a very good question. Actually, when we started working on this film, we had a lot of footage from the election part. And
then we had a sample reel and we showed it to our colleagues. And one of them told us, guys, you have a story here. You have a film ready. A woman
fights against patriarchy and she has some opponents and then she wins.
But we decided to spend six years more on this film to see how she uses the power. It was really important for us to actually see how she challenges
the traditions and how the others are responding to the changes that she's offering. And for us, it was really important because every day we wake up
reading crazy news coming from different parts of the world.
So, it was really important to see how a leader using the power to empower others, not controlling, not suppressing and not trying to decide for
others, but trying to give them space and creating a safe space for everyone in her community. So, we need more people like Sarah or at least
we need to support people like Sarah, leaders like Sarah.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, Sara, because Mohammadreza just talked about, you know, every day waking up and reading things that are going on in the
world, not to mention your own country in Iran, where the struggle on a broad stage for the kind of rights that Sarah is trying to bring her little
rural village is intense. And it's obviously been very bloodily crushed.
Today is the 47th anniversary since they declared that Islamic Republic there. And I wonder what you're thinking about your own country right now.
KHAKI: So, obviously, the news that we've been receiving and the idea of not being able to be contacted -- contacting our families for the nearly a
week, a few weeks back was extremely devastating for us. And it has been for the entire nation, I would say. But on the other side, when we see a
tenacious woman like Sarah Shahverdi, who is bringing hope and trying to shift the culture by -- let's think about her as a for a moment.
We have this one woman, the only female motorcycle rider in the northwest of region, and we follow her for eight years. And we see at the end of the
film that she there are a lot of female motorcycle riders that are accompanying her.
[13:35:00]
Now, recently, she shared with us that as a woman to ride a motorcycle in this region is not a big deal anymore. Of course, there are a lot of
backlashes around along the way. And we witnessed that in this movie. And she also brought that idea of land ownership, you know, shared land
ownership. So, when we see that this is this was not an easy journey for her. But when we see these little sparks of hope, that keeps me hopeful
about what the future can bring.
AMANPOUR: And Sara, your character -- yes. Go ahead.
EYNI: As you can imagine, we are so sad and upset about what is happening in Iran. And it's hard to explain with words. You know, this was the -- you
asked about -- you know, you shared with your audience about this is the first Iranian documentary film being nominated. So, we wanted to share with
our people. But regarding what is happening in Iran, it's even hard for us to celebrate that.
But the only thing that gives me hope about the future of our country is its people. People like Sarah Shahverdi that you saw in the film or people
like Sara Khaki as a director behind the camera. And by having the same mission to bring change to the community. And actually, we both believe
that change could come from the community itself. And this is the result of many people that they are fighting and they supporting each other for a
good change.
And we are here not as politicians, but as storytellers. We have the responsibility to share those stories, to inspire each other and to remind
each other that change is possible in a very peaceful way.
AMANPOUR: Now, let me play another clip, because it goes to the heart of what you're saying about Sarah in the film and the motorcycle riding and
how she's trying to, you know, pay it forward for the other girls. Let's just play this little bit where she's teaching a young girl finished it,
how to ride a motorbike.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Press that down. OK. Take this. Hold that down. When you're ready hit the gas without fear. Yes, release
the clutch. Go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's a great scene. Fedeshte (ph) herself, I think, gets in some trouble and Sarah is summoned to court and she's interrogated
eventually about her policies and about her identity. At one point, they even suggested, why don't you get a sex change or something like that?
Because she doesn't come across as the most, you know, traditionally feminine person. Sara Khaki, how did you sort of cover those sensitive
issues as well?
KHAKI: Let me let me start by saying that the idea of the way in which women bodies become target targets and battlegrounds are shared concerns
worldwide. I have spent half of my life in Iran and the other half in the United States. And as a woman of color, as an immigrant, I see that here in
the States as well. And so, when we, as well as Sarah, were faced with this news, we were extremely surprised. And we actually realized that this is
really also and it's more about power rather than gender. They really wanted to say that being a woman and being powerful don't go together. And
it was a form of humiliation.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KHAKI: And just really finding a way to stop her from doing the amazing work that she's doing.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's --
KHAKI: Very well did for over a year.
AMANPOUR: It's a really amazing story. And congratulations for your Oscar nomination. And of course, you two are married. I missed the headline. So,
it was interesting to see, you know, that work from a married couple. Mohammadreza and Sara, thank you very much for being with us. And we will
be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, protest and resistance can take many forms, including by canceling your monthly subscriptions. That's the thinking behind a new
campaign by professor and author Scott Galloway. He's calling on Americans to stand up to Trump administration's immigration policies by unsubscribing
from big tech companies that enable ICE. And he's joining Hari Sreenivasan to explain why economic strikes like these are, quote, "a weapon hiding in
plain sight and an effective way to take a stand."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Scott Galloway, welcome back. Recently, you launched a campaign to resist
and unsubscribe. In your call to action, you write, First, we must recognize that the president is unfazed by citizen outrage, the courts or
the media. He responds to one thing, the market. The most potent weapon to resist the administration is a targeted, month-long national economic
strike, a coordinated campaign that attacks tech companies and firms, enabling ICE to inflict maximum damage with minimal impact on consumers.
Now, look, people are going to listen to this idea and say, well, haven't the people that have been protesting in the freezing cold in Minneapolis
had an effect? I mean, what is your boycott trying to accomplish in addition?
SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND HOST, "THE PROF G POD WITH SCOTT GALLOWAY": Yes. Well, that's -- first off, Hari, it's
good to see you. That's the operative term is, in addition, I think protests are really inspiring. It just feels good to do something with
other people. I think labor strikes are powerful, getting people registered to vote, media coverage like you're doing is important.
But if you look specifically at where the president has walked back plans to either annex Greenland or walk back tariffs really crisply, it's been
when either the bond market falls or the stock market falls. And what I'd like to think we've zeroed in on is if you were going to find the soft
tissue of the market right now, it would be 10 companies responsible for 40 percent of the S&P, and that those companies are not only enabling this
president or sometimes providing infrastructure for ICE, but they're especially susceptible to a slowdown in subscription revenues.
So, if you were to try and send a message by not shopping for groceries from Kroger, you'd have to get five families to not buy any groceries for a
year for the same economic impact as canceling one ChatGPT subscription based on the ratio of revenues to market cap.
So, I'm trying to figure out a way to impact and send a message to these corporate leaders who the president listens to and to the president with a
minimal amount of disruption to consumers' lives. And the free gift of purchase here is if, like me, you go on to resist and unsub, you're going
to find out you have four AT&T accounts, three of which serving iPads, one with a BlackBerry that you haven't used in eight years. You're going to
find you have three Apple TV Plus accounts. You can find your subscriber to Amazon One Healthy you didn't even know you didn't cancel six years ago.
So, in sum, this is a high impact way to send a message, and you might save some money along the way.
SREENIVASAN: So, you know, you target a group of companies, you say, two categories. One is called the ground zero and one is called the blast zone.
You say ground zero and blast zone businesses don't represent the totality of complicity, but rather the jugular of American authoritarianism. Which
companies are in which category and how did you decide?
GALLOWAY: Well, what I call ground zero is big tech companies that trade for trillions of dollars in market capitalization are effectively the
people sitting around the table when he prostrates them out for a photo op and who he seems to be obsessed with and quite frankly, had figured out
that it's a pay for play administration where if they give the president of money, they might have their deal approved or they might be able to skirt
tariffs or they might be lining up for government backed debt financing of their data centers or chip facilities. So, essentially, Ground Zero is big
tech platforms and that's Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta.
[13:45:00]
And then the Blast Zone is companies that have much lower market caps, but are enabling directly ICE, whether it's AT&T, Hilton. There's a variety of
companies that are specifically and directly aiding ICE's efforts.
But I want to be clear, I'm not -- as a guy with some economic security, I don't feel like it's up to me to be or my right to be the arbiter of
telling who to subscribe from what. I'm trying to make it easy for people to subscribe and send a message. And also, you may decide that you want to
just pause it and then resubscribe in March, or you might decide that you didn't need this stuff and you want to keep sending a message.
What I'm trying to do is send a signal to consumers that a weapon hiding in plain sight, if like me, they want to send a message and they want to feel
as if they're doing something, that that weapon is the most radical act in a capitalist society and that is non-participation. And all of us could
probably afford to spend a little bit less.
Similar to dry January, where a lot of people recalibrate their alcohol intake after a month. This is a chance to recalibrate your automatic
renewal subscriptions, where you probably are spending too much money.
SREENIVASAN: You've called yourself a protest cynic in the past. What changed?
GALLOWAY: You know, Hari, when I saw Secretary Noem describe Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse serving veterans, as a domestic terrorist and claimed that he
was brandishing a weapon with intent to massacre federal agents, I was so rattled by that statement, both in terms of a lack of respect for the dead
and sort of this Orwellian call to ignore our eyes and ears, that I decided I wanted to do more than just hector from the cheap seats.
And one of the reasons I've been able to have such a nice life is when I was younger, I wasn't that afraid of public failure. I've started a lot of
businesses, applied for jobs I wasn't qualified for. And I worry as I get older, I'm getting much more prone and comfortable with complaining and
hectoring and not acting. So, I wanted to get on the field and I wanted to do something. And like Dan Harris says, action absorbs anxiety. This feels
really good to actually be trying to do something.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I wonder if this kind of a protest works, if it's long enough, as you've described, these are enormous companies, can't they
just ride this out? Will they even notice if let's say 10s of 1000s of people unsubscribe, but they have millions of customers?
GALLOWAY: Oh, 100 percent. But, you know, death by 1000 cuts. If there's enough cuts, you do have an impact. I'm very analytical. I'm getting
between 60 and 100,000 or we're getting between 60 and 100,000 unique visitors to the site, resistandunsub.com.
I've loaded both -- all the site analytics, my email inbox, my social media platforms, screenshots to both ChatGPT and cloud the free versions, and
asked it to estimate the number of unsubscribes we're on track for in February. And right now, it's saying we're going to do somewhere between
100 and 200,000 unsubs. I feel like that my math is that'll take out somewhere between 150 and 200 million in market cap out of these companies.
My goal is to take a billion. That is not enough.
And what I'm finding, I've heard from 20 percent of the CEOs and the way it's been described to me is the product management teams and management
middle management's talking about it, but it's not a discussion at the board level yet. But I feel this is just another action in addition to
protests, in addition to getting people to register to vote, in addition to media coverage that -- and you know, the great people in Minneapolis, what
they're doing, you know, I want to be a small hair in the horse's tail that people notice.
But you're right, I'm not -- so far, I got to be honest, the administration hasn't backed down and these companies I'm not sure have noticed, but that
-- I don't think that's a reason to stop. I think every effort counts or something.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you hear from these CEOs, when you hear from these different companies, a lot of them will probably tell you, look,
nothing that we're doing is illegal. And some of them might use the rationale that look, my responsibility is to the shareholders of this
company and the pension funds and everybody else to make sure that the stock stays up. And it's also a slippery slope.
If I decide to back away from this administration or the next one, what am I going to do? How do I keep track? What's your response to them?
GALLOWAY: I try to tell them that I think history is pretty blunt and clear around this. And I'm remiss to compare this administration to the
third Reich. I think that's unfair, but I think we can draw analogies from late-stage Weimar Republic where there was a loss, there was inflation,
there was a loss of cultural and economic standing and middle-class men.
[13:50:00]
And also, you had industrial captains of industry who basically made a deal with some of the fascists, including Hitler himself, that said, if you
crush the unions, we'll ignore this slow burn towards fascism because you're going to make us much richer.
And what I hear from these CEOs privately, when they text message me, is that they're very upset about what's going on, but nobody wants to go first
for fear that they're going to be smacked down hard. A good autocrat punishes whoever goes first. So, what I've been trying to encourage them to
do is to take collective action.
But, Hari, on a more personal level, what I say to them is, what's the point of having all this money and building such an amazing company if you
don't have some fidelity to the rule of law, competitiveness, basic rights? A lot of these folks are immigrants themselves of these companies. You
know, what do you want to be remembered for? And at a minimum, stop using the term stakeholders, which everyone was using and just use the term
shareholders, because it feels as if you're ignoring stakeholders, including the U.S., immigrants, the constitution.
But I do have empathy for the fact that unless it's collective action, it's going to be very difficult for any one firm to go first. But I am shocked
and disappointed that more of these individuals have not spoken out when they are speaking out privately to each other, but they don't want to speak
out publicly.
So, you know, again, I go back to the notion, how do you want to be remembered? What's the point of having all this money if you can't be at
least nod to some of the principles that have given you so much wealth and helped you build such an amazing company?
SREENIVASAN: Yes. I wonder if, you know, we have seen examples of protests that work and protests that don't. I mean, there were calls for people to
boycott Tesla while Elon Musk was, you know, taking a chainsaw through different government agencies. You had a significant response to Disney,
for example, when Jimmy Kimmel was canceled for a few days.
You know, is it the actual protest or is it the visibility? Is it you and I talking about it that makes a difference?
GALLOWAY: That's the correct question. So, I've done a deep dive around. First off, let's be clear, the majority of economic protests don't work.
They come and go and have no impact. And it's like a tree falling in the forest. And I'll give you two examples. Most recent Disney and Jimmy
Kimmel.
When Disney decided to put Kimmel back on the air, the number of unsubscriptions was actually declining. It was media coverage and the
impact of their brand that they were worried about. And if you go back to the Montgomery, Alabama strike that people point to is kind of the example
of a successful strike. History likes to depict it or most people think of it as a brave woman refusing to give up her seat. It was actually a 12
month sustained boycott where Dr. King organized carpools. And over the course of a year, the Municipal Transportation Authority was losing a
quarter of a million dollars a month. And then after a year, they decided to desegregate the buses.
So, the reason I'm not calling for a one-day strike, I'm calling it for the month of February, and I may leave the side up if I can get enough
momentum, maybe we continue to add companies, take companies off. But generally speaking, the economic strikes that work are cumulative. They
build over time. And it's more about, interestingly enough, not only media coverage, but traditional media coverage.
SREENIVASAN: Right now, it seems like it's really hard for the average American family to extricate themselves from the companies on your list.
You know, 83 percent of U.S. households are shopping with Amazon, which is 40 percent of all the U.S. e-commerce in the country, right? And when you
look at the platform of Amazon, where there are thousands of small retailers who really need Amazon to survive, I mean, this seems so
inextricably linked that, I mean, we don't have kind of a fair marketplace where we can just say, well, I'm not going to use Amazon. I'm going to use
this other one that's just as good.
GALLOWAY: You're exactly right. When industries are allowed to consolidate to the point where there's just basically oligopolies of non-monopolies,
they're able to extract greater rents, not only in terms of price, but in terms of a lack of options. So, my home, one of my homes in America, I
don't like coal-fired plants, but I'm still going to turn on my lights. And that's the only electricity that's offered comes from a coal-fired plant.
And when there's a small number of tech platforms who basically control the media, control e-commerce, control search, it gets increasingly difficult
to unsubscribe. I think we need a trust buster here to ensure that there are choices which ultimately create a retransfer back of capital and power
from shareholders and organizations to labor and to consumers.
[13:55:00]
But the reason why it's so hard to unsubscribe from Amazon Prime is what you said. There's just very little choice and very few substitutes. And you
find that across all these big tech platforms. So, in sum, a concentration of industry and monopoly power extracts rents across a variety of
dimensions.
SREENIVASAN: Scott Galloway, professor, podcaster, and now activist at resistandunsubscribe.com. Thanks so much for your time.
GALLOWAY: Thank you, Hari. Always good to see you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, an act of remembrance and resistance at the Olympics. Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych is sporting a
helmet that shows images of Ukrainian athletes killed in the war. The Olympic Committee says that while they, quote, "feel his grief," the helmet
goes against guidelines. But he told CNN's Amanda Davies that he would defy those rules.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADYSLAV HERASKEVYCH, UKRAINIAN SKELETON RACER: And I will wear it for the race day. These people sacrifice their lives. And because of that, I'm
able to be here today. I'm able to be at the Olympics and I will not betray them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Heroic words, indeed. That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
