Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with The New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief Mujib Mashal; Interview with "School Giris: Or, The African Mean Girls Play" Director Whitney White; Interview with "School Giris: Or, The African Mean Girls Play" Actor Patina Miller; Interview with The Nuclear Threat Initiative Board Member and Former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 13, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Could a wave of protests in India wipe out Prime Minister Narendra Modi's support? New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief Mujib Mashal joins us from
New Delhi.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I try to find him, but I don't know where.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Jomana Karadsheh reports on the families in Gaza as they scour the rubble searching for remains of their dead.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am so jealous of your life, Paulina.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know. Hey, I am so blessed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "Schoolgirls: Or, The African Mean Girls Play." A deeply funny, deeply serious new show comes to Broadway. I speak to actress Patina
Miller and director Whitney White.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERNEST MONIZ, BOARD MEMBER, THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE AND FORMER U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: I cannot rule out the fact that they have the material
available, the nuclear material, for a nuclear bomb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Walter Isaacson speaks with former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about the threat of nuclear proliferation as the Iran War
drags on.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga Rodriguez in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Protests and mass detentions sweep through India as the world's largest democracy is rocked by major demonstrations. More than a dozen leaders of
the CJP, India's youth-led Cockroach Party, were detained today after they jumped police barricades and joined the protests. Demonstrators are
demanding the resignation of India's top election official after a purge of more than 100 million voters from election rolls. A move that critics say
benefits Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling party. The government denies the accusations, saying the deletions largely cover the dead or those who
are otherwise ineligible.
This is not the first time the Cockroach Party has come for Mr. Modi's government. This summer, India's education minister resigned after sweeping
demonstrations demanded major reforms to the country's exam system.
Could this Gen Z-led movement be the biggest threat to Prime Minister Modi after more than a decade in power? Mujib Mashal is South Asia Bureau Chief
for The New York Times. He joins us now from New Delhi. Mujib, welcome back to the program.
So, as we've noted, the last few days, we've seen huge protests in India, thousands taking to the streets. I know that you've reported from the front
lines of these protests as well, and they've grown quite diverse. I mean, it's not just students taking to the streets here. It's well-known
opposition leaders, even Bollywood actors. Who are these protesters, and tell us what they're protesting and demanding now?
MUJIB MASHAL, SOUTH ASIA BUREAU CHIEF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it does feel like the biggest challenge that Prime Minister Modi has faced in his
12 years in power, simply because of the diverse nature of the protesters on the streets. It's not just the opposition. In the past, he could dismiss
the opposition as saying they're partisans or losers, but this is a cross- cutting of society. It's a lot of young people.
And the issues are diverse as well. Yes, the trigger is anger over the revision of the electoral rolls, this fear that a lot of people are
deliberately disenfranchised. That is a trigger. But what's coming out on the street is actually frustration over the education system, frustration
with lack of jobs. A lot of things are coming out at once, and the fact that non-partisan youth, as well as the opposition, are sort of coming
together, that is what is creating quite a difficult challenge for the prime minister.
GOLODRYGA: And having covered protests over the summer, as we noted from the same movement and party, when you speak to those on the streets today,
what are they telling you now?
MASHAL: I think one thing that has changed since the summer is that the summer broke the spill. There was an air of fear in India.
[13:05:00]
Although this is a country that is a democracy that has elections regularly, but the way that Prime Minister Modi has been running the
country is sort of largely in his strongman image. That means that the space for dissent, the space for speaking out your voice, has shrunk a lot.
What happened over the summer was that that kind of fear broke. People came out, people voiced their opinion very openly, and people got the prime
minister to concede. He does not concede frequently. That was the biggest setback he had faced when the protesters forced his education minister to
resign.
So, that has kind of opened the crack here, and you can tell that two months later when the young protesters are coming back to the streets, they
see new possibilities. They see that maybe they have opened the window for accountability, that the political equation in this country that had been
for so long one direction, that the prime minister would win elections and then govern however he wanted, maybe that will change with the public
pressure on the streets.
So, this time around, I think they're galvanized by that win a couple months ago, but it's grown a much more complex problem now because their
demand is the resignation of somebody who holds a constitutional office rather than a political office, and that is complicating the knot right
now.
GOLODRYGA: And this is India's chief election commissioner, correct?
MASHAL: Yes, this is the chief election commissioner who is appointed through a committee where Prime Minister Modi has outsized influence. It's
a committee of the prime minister, a cabinet minister, and the leader of opposition. So, two-in-one vote in favor of the government. That law was
changed to make it so about three years ago.
So, they're saying there have been a bunch of steps over the years that has kind of given the prime minister and the government outsized influence over
the electoral process and this revision role, the way the revisions have been conducted, it is kind of locking in the ruling party's advantage for
years to come.
GOLODRYGA: All right. And protesters are alleging deliberate disenfranchisement by the removal, the culling, of some 130 million names
here, this stemming from an investigation that led all of this out to the forefront. And now, the government is saying, and we should note, the
removal of these names, that in and of itself doesn't indicate wrongdoing. The government is saying that these were either people who had died or were
ineligible to vote.
But these protesters are saying that this is deliberate disenfranchisement. Have you found any evidence to support their claims thus far?
MASHAL: One thing that has been clear about this process is, the process of revision, is that it was very rushed, that it was very sudden, and that
it's been very chaotic. So, in the least, people have not been allowed due process. Their names have been struck off, and the -- sort of the burden of
documentation has been so enormous. In the face of that burden, people are not allowed their due process.
There are examples. In West Bengal, there is a state that the BJP, Prime Minister Modi's party, had wanted to win for a long time, the local
government there. And they had failed to do so. And then they got the state through this revision process.
And as the revision process was at its tail end, they announced the local elections there. There were millions of people whose names were struck off.
They were still in the appeals process while the election went ahead.
So, the possibility that millions of people were disenfranchised, they could not exercise their vote, was very real. What has even increased the
suspicion is that off those millions of people who could not vote in that election, as their appeals are being heard now, a vast majority of them
have been found legitimate, and they need to go back on the voter rolls. So, there have been very specific examples to suggest that at least the
chaos led to disenfranchisement.
But there's also evidence piling up that some of that was deliberate. There are examples of different constituencies across the country where members,
local activists, connected to the ruling party were actively in bulk trying to dispute the existence of people and trying to get their names off the
local electoral rolls. So, there's enough concern, enough evidence.
[13:10:00]
The scale of disenfranchisement is hard to tell. As you were saying, it's hard to tell how many of the 130 million were actual people whose names
were struck off rather than duplicates or people who had died?
But the biggest, I think, suspicion has come up that this revision, this cleaning up of the electoral rolls are supposed to happen before every
election. It's supposed to be a routine thing. How come all of a sudden tens of millions of people are found dead, right? How come all of a sudden
there are tens of millions of people who were shifted who shouldn't have been on the electoral rolls?
Particularly what raises question is that it was these electoral rolls that just two years ago on which the prime minister won his third term and it's
these same rolls that his party has won multiple states. So, people are saying either the rolls were not fair based on which you won the previous
elections or that the change is so dramatic and so massive that we question your intention of what you're trying to do through this process.
GOLODRYGA: So, at the very least, at this point, the government's justification for this process is not being trusted by the majority of
those who are coming out to the streets and protesting. And this movement, as we know, is being led by the Janta, the cockroach Janta Party. Its
founder spoke with Christiane recently about being called a national security threat by his own government. I'd like to play for you some of
what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABHIJEET DIPKE, FOUNDER, COCKROACH JANTA PARTY: I was very disappointed, very disheartened more than that I was heartbroken that the government of
my own country was calling me a national security threat. And that is why I chose to come back to my country and to prove that I'm not a national
security threat if anything, I'm a patriot and I love my country just not in the way this government expects me to, but I do love my country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, tell us about Abhijeet Dipke and a little bit more about the party itself.
MASHAL: So, the party is a bunch of young activists who came together in ad hoc way a few months ago. What kind of gave the trigger was a offhanded
comment by the country's Supreme Court where he basically dissed young people as, you know, as cockroaches who were not being productive.
And the young people saw that comment as a sort of the behavior, the attitude of the ruling elite that dismisses them that does not listen to
their grievances and talks down to them. So, Abhijeet actually took that term cockroach and he started an online campaign while he was a student in
the United States doing a graduate degree. And that online campaign took off massively and then it turned into offline mobilization.
So, it began as a sort of an activist campaign of thing for accountability. At that time, the biggest issue was college entrance exams. There have been
repeated scandals in this country around leaks of college entrance tests. A lot of people here cannot afford private universities. They want seats at
government universities at a discount rate. But the competition for those seats is enormous. And the tests are often leaked. So, that causes a lot of
pain.
And around the latest, you know, round of such leaks, there was a lot of anger and the cockroach sort of party, although they call themselves a
party in the name, they're a movement more than a party. They're not a registered political party. They jumped into that issue. They galvanized
people, mobilized people, and they got the prime minister to concede by getting his education minister to quit. So, that was the first issue they
rallied around.
Now, they're rallying around the issue of the electoral rolls. But the anger, and as I was saying earlier, is much more than the electoral rolls.
The electoral rolls issue is actually quite complicated in terms of the layers of complexity documentation in the way it connects to people. But a
lot of people are angry about it because if you lose your voter card in this country, you could lose welfare benefits. You could lose access to
ration. So, it is a very tangible thing to people.
So, they're rallying around this anger as well. But the bigger campaign they've made, you know, their mission is to inject some accountability into
governance in this country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You wrote for the New York Times a piece titled "India's Young Put Their Bodies on the Line to be heard." A lot of criticism about
how some of these protesters were met and handled by police, the world's largest democracy here. At what point does this become a significant threat
in your view to the prime minister himself? And do you expect that he will be addressing publicly, he's a gifted orator, some of their demands?
[13:15:00]
MASHAL: He's a gifted orator, but he also has this personality where he tries to keep distance from anything negative. So, even on the day that the
protesters were being beaten up, detained by the thousands, the prime minister's social feed was like birthday greetings and festival wishes. He
doesn't do press conferences. He rarely addresses any negative issue head on. He sort of wheels out his lieutenants who just attack.
So, it's -- the behavior of the government, the statements of the government ministers, and how large the mobilization of the opposition was
yesterday on the streets, tens of thousands of people after the crackdown. So, that tells me and in conversations I've had with people close to the
governing coalition that it's grown quite a difficult political challenge for him. I don't think it is at any point that it's a threat to him. He has
weathered other storms, but it's just this is a unique challenge because on the one hand he doesn't like to concede.
Secondly, this would be concession around an issue that is very sensitive. That if people are saying you're rigging the voter rolls, your mandate is
in question, and that you allow the election chief to resign, your opposition can easily spin that as your mandate always being questionable,
right? So, that has put him --
GOLODRYGA: Or acknowledging that they did something wrong. Right.
MASHAL: Exactly. Because the issue is so complex, but a resignation gives the opposition sort of the receipt that there was something wrong.
GOLODRYGA: Mujib Mashal, great to have you on South Asia Bureau Chief of the New York Times. Appreciate it.
MASHAL: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we turn now to Gaza, where a fragile year-old ceasefire continues to stretch at the seams. Israel has been stepping up its assaults
on Hamas, accusing the group of rebuilding its arsenal and planning attacks. But Hamas is saying Israel is undermining the ceasefire brokered
by the U.S.
According to the Gaza health officials, at least 1,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the truce began. Israel says four of its
soldiers have been killed by militants in the same span of time.
Meanwhile, inside Gaza, the desperate search goes on for those who are still missing. Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh has this story. And a
warning, her report contains some disturbing images.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): His mother was wearing a skirt. A skirt. Yes, she was wearing it. She was wearing it.
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Through the stench of decomposing remains, Antalib (ph) is identifying the dead, by the clothes
they wore that day, three years ago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Your mother. Your mother. I'm telling you, it is your mother. The prayer clothes, it's your aunt.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): This is what it's come to in Gaza. Those who survived trying to identify those who did not. Three years in, the smallest
detail carries the most weight, a scrap of clothing enough to bring a family its answers and the deceased their dignity.
The search is painstaking, today sped up by Gaza City's only excavator, finally here to remove the rubble from the 2023 Israeli bombing that killed
dozens of Antalib's family.
Israel's banned the entry of heavy machinery into Gaza until it says Hamas is disarmed. But that means leaving the whole devastated strip with only
two excavators, according to local officials.
It's been a year since the cease-fire agreement, and so many are still searching for what's left of their loved ones.
The Palestinian civil defense says more than 8,000 are missing, believed to be buried beneath the sea of rubble Gaza has become, but even trying to
locate their remains seems impossible.
Over 60 percent of Gaza is under Israeli control and off limits for Palestinians.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I try to find him. But I don't know where.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): For three long years, Suha (ph) has been searching among the dead, looking for her boy. She says her son, Jihad (ph), was shot
and killed in front of her in November 2023 during the Israeli military's forced evacuation of Gaza City. She had to leave his body behind at the
hospital and flee. She's been searching for him ever since.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Why am I still alive? Why am I alive? My home is gone. My son is gone. What should I live for?
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Our cameraman met Suha last year as she and other families gathered to dig out the makeshift graveyard at Shifa Hospital.
[13:20:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I was calling out for him in the cemeteries. I am here my son. I bought you your daughters. Dear God give me
a sign that he is here. I want to see him, even if for a minute to hold him.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): She spotted this blanket. She's certain it's the one he was carrying that day. A year on, we found her still looking for her
son.
SUHA AL-SHARIF, SEARCHING FOR MISSING SON (through translator): I need to find him to know is place, his body, his grave. So, as a mother, I can be
at peace. I want to be at peace. I want to find my son to be at peace.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): But in this place, it seems there's no peace. Not for the living, not even for the dead.
Jomana Karadsheh, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, from the familiarity of school cliques to exploring girlhood, colorism and capitalism, this play has it all. Also, Bobby Brown.
"Schoolgirls: Or, The African Mean Girls Play," has been beloved for almost a decade. And now, it's back in New York on Broadway and getting rave
reviews.
Set in 1980s Ghana, it follows a group of female school friends whose clique is upended by the arrival of an American transfer student. Here's a
little taste of the queen bee, Paulina, who's hoping to be selected to compete in the Miss Ghana pageant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right, ladies. I will be wearing my very own Calvin Klein dress to the audition.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my goodness.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't even know who that is.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am so jealous of your life, Paulina.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know. Hey, I am so blessed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, you really are.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, don't worry, Ama. I know you can't afford to get a nice dress for yourself, so I will let you wear one of my options. I'm
sure one of them will fit you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, Paulina, but I think I'll be OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you sure?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, you're my best friend and I really need you to look good, Ama.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Hilarious, heartwarming and whip smart. It's a proper exploration of the universal problems and glaring differences facing
teenage girls everywhere. The play is directed by Whitney White, who's joining me alongside one of its stars, Patina Miller. Welcome, both of you.
I have to say the Bobby Brown part really made me laugh and brought me back to the '80s and myself growing up. There was so much here that reflected a
universality that girls around the world feel, whether they're in America in high school or in Ghana in high school. And as we noted in the
introduction, this play brilliantly highlights the differences as well. Differences we don't discuss nearly enough.
Let me start with you, Whitney. The title evokes mean girls. We recognize the cliques, obviously the Queen Bee. We saw Paulina there.
[13:25:00]
What struck you when you first read this play and what is setting it in Ghana bring to the familiar aspect of this story as well?
WHITNEY WHITE, DIRECTOR, "SCHOOL GIRLS: OR, THE AFRICAN MEAN GIRLS PLAY": Thank you for the question. I mean, when I first read the script, I was
just struck by its honesty. If you're a young woman and you've survived your teenage years, you're going to love it. Teenage and tween years,
preteen years. Those are brutal years. You know, those are the years you discover who you are. You discover what it takes to be in the group or out
the group. And group politics can be brutal on someone's coming of age experience.
And Jocelyn Bioh was so honest about those fragile, intimate moments that can happen within a group of peers. You know, and I think what's special
about the setting of Ghana, about Ibri and also 1986, is that it's a pre- phone time, you know. So, the interpersonal communication is so direct and full of need. They can't go to the Internet. They have to express
everything with each other all at once. And I think it makes it particularly rich to be in a pre-social media era and looking at these
issues.
GOLODRYGA: And also, just the obsession, the adoration of the U.S., right? Whether it's White Castle or Calvin Klein or Clean. I mean, there was just
this view of America as making it in life if somebody has had an opportunity to be there.
Patina, let me bring you in. You play Eloise. She arrives to recruit for a beauty pageant and never lets anyone forget that she held a very important
title of Miss Ghana 1966. I think we hear this throughout the play multiple times. Let's watch a clip of your character.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, what are you doing here?
PATINA MILLER, ACTOR, "SCHOOL GIRIS: OR, THE AFRICAN MEAN GIRLS PLAY": Darling, I'm one of the recruiters for the Miss Ghana pageant.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, isn't that a coincidence? We weren't expecting you until tomorrow.
MILLER: Yes, I know. But Aburi was the last school on my list. So, I decided to come up earlier, go see my mom and some family and make a trip
of it, you know. I haven't been back home in over 10 years. Can you believe that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I can.
MILLER: Anyways, I am so excited to be a recruiter this year. I feel very committed to finding a winning girl. And, you know, I don't mean to brag.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You, of course, not.
MILLER: But if one of my recruits becomes Miss Ghana 1986, I will get a big promotion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Really?
MILLER: And you know what that means?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A bigger crown?
MILLER: No. It means big, big, big money for both myself, the winner, and a generous donation to the school.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, Eloise favors Ericka, a Ghanaian American, who she calls having, quote, "commercial appeal." How does Eloise justify enforcing a
beauty standard that really favors a girl with lighter skin than her own?
MILLER: You know, I think that's one of the most heartbreaking things about Eloise is that she recognizes what the world is. You know, her having
gone out into the world and seen how harsh it is, seen the harsh realities of what it means to be a brown girl walking in the world and what that
means. And so, as much as she hates it, she knows that in order for Ghana to really be put on the map, get recognition, she knows that people are
obsessed with, you know, proximity to whiteness or, like, being light is better.
And so, in her mind, she's doing what is necessary for Ghana, obviously for herself, and something that will change the course of these girls, these
young girls' lives. And I do honestly think she does think that Paulina will have an opportunity later on, but she knows that it's not going to
happen without, you know, Ericka first doing it.
GOLODRYGA: And speaking of Paulina, what a dynamic character, Whitney. It's hard to love her, very easy to hate her, but you can't forget about
her either. And just talk about the complexity of someone who can be so cruel and written in such an intense, three-dimensional way that you see
through the flaws and you're able to understand where she's coming from despite the hate.
WHITE: Yes. I mean, that was beautifully put. I think Jocelyn Bioh, our playwright, she's rendered a character, again, that is just very real. And
something we said to each other a lot in rehearsals is hurt people end up hurting people.
[13:30:00]
And Paulina, our Queen B, our mean girl at the top of the food chain, you know, she's been abandoned by her father. She's one of many children. And
she notes she is the darkest in her family. She notes that her mother would have given her bleach instead of food, bleaching cream. And so, here is
this girl whose only good thing has ever happened to her was admission to this school. And she gets in the school, and she just has everyone by the
neck. And she's treating people. She's modeling, you know, behavior that's been modeled to her.
And at the same time, she's still a child, you know, and that's why even though you hate her at times, you feel for her at the end. And I think it
is a beautiful portrait of the ways we can unknowingly inflict pain on children and then what they will do in their own systems. And it's a
portrait of what can happen when we're not talking to children the right way about who they are and how they present in the world.
GOLODRYGA: And somebody who does that and who we should not forget in terms of characters in this rich play is the schoolmaster, the head of the
school. And she is able to see in Paulina what so many of us really don't want to at times. And so, for you, Patina, just talk about the dynamics you
built in not only establishing Eloise as a character, but your interactions with these other girls.
MILLER: I mean, first off, I have the opportunity and the privilege to work with some amazing actresses. Heather Alicia Sims, our entire company
is just they're all so incredible. And what I love about it, we've all brought something I feel personally, something unique to the process,
something that is so personal to all of these characters. They're so rich and there is such a connection between all of them. And I know for myself
as Eloise, there is a connection to headmistress Franny. They were friends.
And a lot of the things that you see the girls going through, they have gone through some of those same things. And so, when Eloise comes back in
with this new job, she does sometimes turn into a kid when she's with her friend, her friend that's known her the longest, her friend that knew her
before her accent changed. And she now has a British accent, you know.
And so, there's so many dynamics that you get to see Eloise and headmistress have as the two adults in the play, where sometimes they
revert back to their schoolgirl --
WHITE: Child cells.
MILLER: -- child cells. But then you also see them both trying to have the power, you know, and taking the power and sort of going back and forth and
just with the girls. I think that it's a lovely dynamic. Everyone's just so on their game. And the characters are just so connected and rich. And I'm
having the best time.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, it's obvious in watching this play. Whitney, another universal theme is that we see in, you know, I think adults, too, but
especially in young girls, is always thinking that someone else is better than them, envying them, being jealous that they have a better life. And in
this story, we talked about the sort of aspiration of America itself and what Ericka represents as being a biracial girl. Let's talk about her
entrance into the school and how her peers react to her physicality and her hair.
WHITE: Yes. I mean --
GOLODRYGA: Sorry. We have a clip. We have a clip. And then let's talk about it after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm sorry, Ericka. But I have to ask, what did you use to get your head that long?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, this is just natural.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are so lucky.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks. But headmistress scheduled my haircut for next week.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, mine is that long, too. When I straighten it, you can see.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wish my hair was easier to manage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I have tons of products you could try, like a bunch of things that I got in America.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, like what? Hair grease?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oil?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lotion?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All of that. You girls should come to my dormitory and try them out. We could have a little makeover party or something.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A makeover party?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A party to get make up? Count me in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I want to try everything.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because your stuff must be top quality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Whitney, for audience members who understand what a scene like that means and for those who perhaps don't until they see an exchange like
we just played, what do you want them to walk away with? What's the messaging here?
WHITE: I want them to walk away with the profound understanding of the impact of American cultural politics. That has the things we value here,
for good or for bad. It ripples throughout the world. And the play is set in 1986, and that was a time, you know, we're coming out of the Cold War,
we're dealing with that. And so, the walls were coming down across the world. So, Whitney Houston tapes were all over the place. Bobby Brown was
all over the place. And similarly, was this understanding of external value based on color.
[13:35:00]
And so, here comes this little girl who is a kind of walking symbol of everything these little schoolgirls read about and dream about and listen
to, you know. And she looks like a little Whitney Houston, you know, and they're totally enamored. But they're looking at her with the weight of the
kind of cultural significance that she embodies, you know.
GOLODRYGA: And, Patina, the actress who plays Ericka brilliantly dispels this idea that she has this utopian perfect life and describes growing up
in a society where perhaps the black community hasn't fully embraced her and the white community hasn't. How important was that scene in that
moment?
MILLER: Oh, my God, I think it's like I think it's important to see both sides, right? Like these girls are all there, you know, so just enamored by
her and, you know, thinking she has like the world at her feet. And then everybody, you know what I mean? And she's dealing with her own battles at
home, not feeling good enough, not having friends, being disconnected to her father. And, you know, the and Ghana, you know, and coming into this
place and having to like, you know, feeling so othered in the in the other way.
So, I mean, I think it's important to shed light on that as well of what, you know, growing up being mixed race, what that means and how people think
you have it all. But, you know, Ericka is Ericka is a character that is just, you know, struggling like all of them. You know, they all nothing is
perfect about her life at all. And she says it many times in the piece. And she's shocked when the girls are all making, you know, like they're sort of
idolizing her in a way when they first meet her. And, yes. So, I think the play, you get to see both sides, you get to see both sides.
GOLODRYGA: And I just imagine that for you, Patina, playing a role of judging others when you're in a brutal field. I'm sure you were able to
channel a lot of your own experiences about being judged as an audition after audition throughout your career. So, sadly I would expect you didn't
have to dig too deep on that. But you ladies went there.
Bobby Brown. How could I forget Whitney Houston? "The Greatest Love of All." All the hits are in this play. You had me laughing. You had me
gasping.
WHITE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: There were moments where you could hear a pin drop. I loved it. And I highly recommend everyone go see this if you get a chance.
MILLER: Thank you so much.
WHITE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Whitney White, Patina Miller, congratulations. Bringing back 1986.
MILLER: Yes.
WHITE: Thank you so much.
MILLER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Iran is strengthening its nuclear and military facilities as it prepares for the possibility of renewed fighting with America. That is
according to a Wall Street Journal report, raising questions about what remains of Tehran's nuclear capability. Inspectors have not been told how
much enriched uranium survived attacks last year or have been allowed to visit the damaged sites.
[13:40:00]
Ernest Moniz was the U.S. Energy Secretary under President Obama, and he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss where America stands now and what it would
take to reach a new nuclear agreement.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Secretary Ernest Moniz, welcome to the show.
ERNEST MONIZ, BOARD MEMBER, THE NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE AND FORMER U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY: Good to join you, Walter.
ISAACSON: You were one of the architects of President Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Trump called it a terrible deal and pulled us out. Did that
make it harder or easier for Iran to develop nukes?
MONIZ: Well, first of all, I think the deal was, frankly, terrific, but I guess I'm a bit biased. Certainly, if the JCPOA were still something that
we agreed with today, Iran would certainly not be building a nuclear weapon, would not be close to it. In fact, the restrictions on the nuclear
dimensions of the Iranian program would be in place until 2031, so we're still five years away from that.
But even more important, Walter, and I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail, the really distinguishing part of the 2015 agreement were the
extraordinary verification and transparency measures, and I believe those are going to be very, very difficult to recreate.
ISAACSON: President Trump has said that the attacks on the Iranian facilities that he did and that the attacks done jointly with Israel
obliterated Iran's nuclear capacity. Is that true? And do they actually have enough uranium, even if it's not fully enriched, that they could make
a bomb now?
MONIZ: Well, the obliteration has some elements of truth and some elements of exaggeration. Clearly, things like centrifuges were knocked out of
operation, et cetera, buildings were destroyed. And by the way, I do want to emphasize, Walter, that I think after that bombing, there was still
plenty of room to negotiate, something that I would not say following the all-out war that started this year.
But going back to your question, look, the fact is Iran had crossed, in my view, a red line in going to almost half a ton of 60 percent enriched
uranium. The statement is often made that 60 percent enrichment is not quite weapons-grade, and that's true, because weapons-grade, by definition,
is 90 percent. But it would be incorrect to assume that 60 percent cannot be used directly in a nuclear bomb. It can be. In fact, the bomb that we
dropped, we, the United States, dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was not weapons-grade by that definition. So, the reality is that material still
exists.
Now, we don't know if it's all buried under the rubble at Isfahan, and therefore, at least at the moment, unusable. I personally do not agree with
the conclusion that it is. Iran had a structured nuclear weapons program until 2003. The only thing it was really missing was the fissile material
to make a bomb. Well, they had it in 2025. They started in 2021, and by 2025, they had more than 440 kilograms of that material.
So, my answer to that is yes. I cannot rule out the fact that they have the material available, the nuclear material for a nuclear bomb now.
ISAACSON: And do you think Donald Trump can make a deal?
MONIZ: I'm very, very suspect that that's possible. First of all, he did, as you noted earlier, withdraw from the agreement in 2018. That didn't
exactly engender a lot of trust. But --
ISAACSON: And do you think this war has made it harder?
MONIZ: Yes, I think the war -- not -- again, not the bombing last year, 2025, but the war in 2026, I believe has made it much more difficult. In
fact, Iran, of course, is not surprising. Elevated the question of free navigation through Hormuz, an issue that wasn't even present before the
war, and that's got to be resolved.
So, I just think that it's much, much more difficult. And I don't think the current administration would be able to negotiate a good deal. They could
negotiate a bad deal, of course.
[13:45:00]
For example, a deal based upon the memorandum of understanding that President Trump signed with the Iranian president in June of 2026. That
would be an example of a foundation for negotiating a bad deal. It has many features in it which are very, very problematical.
I'll mention just one. In 2015, when the original Iran nuclear deal was negotiated, the sanctions that were lifted, in contrast to what many may
think today, were not all the sanctions. It was only a piece of the sanctions, namely those specifically put in place to address the nuclear
program. So, the leverage was still there to negotiate on missiles, on regional proxies, on human rights, et cetera.
But in the June MOU that was negotiated, a final deal not reached. But in that MOU, it said that the United States, upon reaching a final deal, would
lift all sanctions. That's a terrible mistake to lift all the sanctions. So, as I say, I think we need to have a fresh start. It's probably going to
require a new administration of whichever political party to sit down and start de novo with the construction of a good deal.
ISAACSON: The Trump administration has negotiated a civilian nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. Where does that stand? And do you think it's a good
idea?
MONIZ: Well, the agreement, first of all, stands before the Congress, because any of these peaceful uses of atomic energy agreements have a
period in which they stand before the Congress. If the Congress declines to endorse the deal, of course, the president could always veto that and still
push it through.
Now, whether it's a good idea. Well, first of all, I think it is a good idea to have a nuclear agreement for peaceful uses with Saudi Arabia. It
fits into the whole potential renaissance of nuclear energy. It fits in with the United States' desire to be part of the global supply chain for
new nuclear builds, should they occur. So, I think that's all very good.
However, I do have major problems with the agreement. Specifically, it goes back to our earlier discussion of Iran. It seems to me that we should be
discussing any nuclear issue in the Gulf region as a regional issue. The agreement with Saudi Arabia fails to require the Saudis to join the
additional protocol, for example. It's silent on verification issues.
Now, in the regional context, I find it's going to -- I would think it'll be very difficult to go back to Iran and reestablish those verification
measures like the additional protocol when their neighbor across the Gulf is not being required to do so. The additional protocol is what allows the
international inspectors to go to suspected covert sites, because without the additional protocol, the inspectors are limited to those places that
Iran or some other country would declare to be nuclear facilities.
So, I think the Saudi agreement, it's good in terms of establishing nuclear relationships between the Saudis and our country. But I think it falls
short on verification and will very much complicate any possibility of a of a new nuclear agreement with Iran.
ISAACSON: Well, you're saying that the Saudi deal would make more sense if it was part of some comprehensive framework for the Middle East. Let me
read you something you wrote, I think about a year ago. You said this is an ideal moment for the United States to shape the trajectory of Iran's
nuclear ambition by forging a new cooperative approach to nuclear energy in the Middle East. How would you do something comprehensive?
MONIZ: Well, the first thing it would require is sitting down together with particularly the Saudis, the Emiratis and the Iranians, and to
advocate for the idea of a regional what's called nuclear fuel cycle, meaning all of the elements you need to make nuclear energy, not just the
reactor itself, but also the fuel to go into the reactor, the uranium to go into the fuel, the enrichment, the management of the irradiated fuel that
comes out of the reactor.
[13:50:00]
And what you would do is you would have a negotiation in which especially those three parties, there could be others involved, would agree on
different parts of that supply chain being in all of their countries. So, no one country would control enough of the supply chain to make a nuclear
weapon.
ISAACSON: Let me just get it straight. You think Iran and Saudi Arabia could do this together? I mean, why would they trust each other to do that?
MONIZ: Well, because they all have interests. Iran, first of all, I should say, in 2015, when we were negotiating the Iran agreement, the Iranians
proposed a regional fuel cycle. It was premature at that time. I think the time could be right now.
But secondly, the Saudis -- and by the way, the Saudis and the Emiratis have their own internal problems as well, not only with Iran. However, the
Saudis and the Emiratis and also Qatar and some of the other countries, regional countries, they have a desperate need to have a secure and
essentially peaceful situation in the Gulf region. The Emiratis and the Saudis have a strong commitment to diversifying their economies, attracting
tourism. They can't do that when there's a war going on.
So, they have a strong interest. The Iranians have a strong interest, especially now with their infrastructure so badly damaged and their need
for economic development again, which was there even before the war. And now, it's, of course, worse with the war.
So, you know, the Arab countries in the Gulf region also have a lot of resources. They could, if there were proper risk amelioration, they could
invest in part of the rebuilding of Iran. But I mean invest for a return. And that would require a lot of internal reforms in the Iranian government.
So, this is not a simple thing.
But I do think that if you take all of the interests of all of the Gulf countries together, I believe there is a strong interest in trying to
rebuild a peaceful future.
ISAACSON: You recently co-chaired a bipartisan task force on nuclear proliferation, in other words, the spread of nuclear weapons to other
countries. Tell me what you all decided and what you recommend.
MONIZ: We asked the same question. First, should nuclear nonproliferation remain a key pillar of U.S. security policy? And the answer was yes. The
same as it was in 65, with people from very, very different security backgrounds agreeing on that.
However, we also acknowledged that the nuclear proliferation scene is a very different one. China is scaling up its nuclear arsenal very
dramatically to become a peer stockpile compared with Russia and the United States. That dynamic in and of itself means that the historical approach to
arms control between the U.S. and the USSR and then Russia is kind of no longer operable with a third major arsenal.
We have, of course, the Iranian situation. We have North Korea having tested and built up a stockpile of many tens of nuclear weapons in this
century. We have the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan. It's just a whole different world.
And so, we did conclude that while nuclear nonproliferation remains important, it must be addressed by the United States in a new way. Our
suggestion was that we continue with so-called extended deterrence. That is, we continue to provide a nuclear umbrella over these countries.
However, that should be accompanied by a substantial and coordinated buildup of the conventional defenses of these countries.
ISAACSON: Secretary Ernest Moniz, thank you so much for joining us.
MONIZ: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, out of the ashes, eight orangutans returned to the wild in Indonesia. In recent months, fires tore through the endangered
apes' natural habitat, but now they have moved to a safe location. Among those heading home are Mama Nopi and her three children. They were rescued
from a coconut and rubber plantation in Borneo last month. Indonesian authorities rescued a total of 46 orangutans over the course of the dry
season.
[13:55:00]
And do be sure to tune in later this week for Christiane's onstage interview with three female presidents. Forty years on from the famous
summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, Christiane sat down with the presidents of Iceland and Slovenia and the former president of Ireland to
discuss leadership, diplomacy and the threats from A.I. They spoke as part of the Imagine Forum, an annual summit dedicated to peace and dialogue. Be
sure to tune into that.
And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
