♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYBODY, WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY."

HERE'S WHAT IS COMING UP.

>> WE MADE A DEAL, WE'LL SEND THEM WEAPONS, AND THEY'LL PAY FOR THEM.

>> TRUMP HAILS A NEW WEAPONS BOOST FOR UKRAINE AND APPEARS TO BE SOURING ON RUSSIA.

RISKS AND REWARDS OF DEEPENING U.S. SUPPORT FOR KYIV.

>>> THEN IRAN EXPELS HALF A MILLION AFGHANS.

ONE OF THE LARGEST FORCED MIGRATIONS IN DECADES.

PLUS -- >> WHAT WOULD WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY DONE ON TWITTER?

HE WOULD HAVE BURNED IT UP, HAD MORE TWEETS THAN DONALD TRUMP AND ELON MUSK COMBINED.

>> THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, TALKING TO ISAAC ABOUT HIS DEEP INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONSERVATIVE ICON.

♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS, CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYBODY, I'M IN NEW YORK, SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PUTTING PRESSURE ON RUSSIA TODAY, ANNOUNCING A NEW WEAPONS DEAL FOR UKRAINE.

HE SAYS NATO COUNTRIES WILL BUY AMERICAN WEAPONS AND SEND THEM TO UKRAINE.

HE THREATENED PRESIDENT PUTIN WITH PUNISHING TRADE CONSEQUENCES.

>> DISAPPOINTED IN PRESIDENT PUTIN, I THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE HAD A DEAL TWO MONTHS AGO, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO GET THERE.

BASED ON THAT, WE'RE GOING TO DO SECONDARY TARIFFS, 100%.

THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

>> IT'S A REMARKABLE ABOUT FACE IN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD UKRAINE, IN PARTICULAR HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE SOURED CONSIDERABLY.

PUTIN HE SAYS TALKS NICE AND BOMBS EVERYBODY IN THE EVENING.

HERE WITH THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUSSIAN AFFAIRS UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN AND FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO NATO.

DAVID, WHAT SIGNAL DO YOU THINK THIS NEW POLICY OF SELLING U.S.

WEAPONS TO EUROPE TO THEN FIND THEIR WAY TO UKRAINE -- WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO MOSCOW?

GIVEN HOW THIS PRESIDENT JUST MONTHS AGO WAS SO HESITANT TO DO JUST THAT.

>> SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD, POSITIVE STEP WITH MANY DETAILS STILL TO BE WORKED OUT AND FOLLOW-THROUGHS TO BE HAD.

BUT THE CORE BJECTIVE IS TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT PUTIN AND HIS LEADERSHIP THAT THIS WILL PERSIST AND IT'S IN RUSSIAN INTERESTS TO AGREE TO A CEASEFIRE, WHICH UKRAINE HAS AGREED TO.

HOPEFULLY THROUGH THE NEW ARRANGEMENT, MORE DETAILS STILL TO BE LEARNED, WEAPONS FLOWING TO EUROPE AND UKRAINE WILL AID TO CHANGING RUSSIA'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE WAR TO GET TO MOVING NEGOTIATIONS INSTEAD OF SLOW MOVING NEGOTIATIONS TO THIS POINT.

>> PATRIOT MISSILES, DEFENSIVE WEAPONS, THE PRESIDENT TOUTING THE STRENGTH OF THE U.S.

WEAPONS INDUSTRY, WHICH ARE IN HIS WORDS AND ANALYSTS WOULD SAY ARE UNMATCHED, AND POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE WEAPONS.

DOES THAT CHANGE THE CALCULUS FOR PUTIN AT ALL?

>> IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED A LOT OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

THERE'S A WELL-PLOWED PATH TO PROVIDING UKRAINE WITH THIS SUPPORT.

THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER TRUMP WILL MAINTAIN THIS LEVEL OF SUPPORT, HOPEFULLY HE WILL WITH PROVIDING ARMS THROUGH EUROPE.

BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED.

WILL THE EUROPEANS BE PUT AT THE BACK OF THE PROCUREMENT LINE FOR THESE CAPABILITIES THAT CAN STRETCH ON FOR YEARS, OR CAN THEY PURCHASE EXPEDITED TO GET THEM TO UKRAINE MORE QUICKLY.

THAT'S POINT ONE.

POINT TWO IS IF THE UNITED STATES WILL DO ADDITIONAL DRAWDOWN FROM U.S. STOCKS FOR UKRAINE THAT THE EUROPEANS CAN REIMBURSE AND ENABLE RAPID FLOW FROM THE UNITED STATES TO EUROPE TO UKRAINE.

MUCH DETAIL TO BE WORKED OUT, BUT IT'S A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THE UNITED STATES GETS NEEDED CAPABILITIES TO UKRAINE.

>> AND THE PRESIDENT SAID SOME OF THE WEAPONS WILL BE IN UKRAINE IN A MATTER OF DAYS.

BUT YOU WRITE THERE'S REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THIS CHANGE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POSITION AND POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE AND HIS SKEPTICISM ABOUT VLADIMIR PUTIN BEING SERIOUS ABOUT ENDING THIS WAR.

WHY?

>> BECAUSE THE RECORD SUGGESTS THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS CONFLICT, SEEN UKRAINE AS AS MUCH A PROBLEM OF WHAT IS HAPPENING AS RUSSIA.

AND IN FACT, UNTIL JUST LAST FEW DAYS, HE ALWAYS BELIEVED HE WAS THE ONE WHO COULD WORK WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN TO END THIS WAR.

HE'S SHIFTED, CLEARLY THE RHETORIC HAS SHIFTED.

NOW THE POLICY IS SHIFTING.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE HOW LONG THAT LASTS.

50-DAY DEADLINE FOR A CEASEFIRE THAT USED TO BE TWO WEEKS.

AND SANCTIONS HE'S TALKING ABOUT, TARIFFS WILL BE PUT ON OTHER COUNTRIES, NOT THE RUSSIANS.

ALL OF THAT SAID, I'D RATHER BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY THAN LAST WEEK EVEN, HESITATING TO SENDING PATRIOTS, SAYING WE NEED THEM AS WELL AS UKRAINE AND THERE AREN'T A LOT THERE.

CLEARLY THERE IS NOW A PATHWAY FORWARD TO PROVIDING THE WEAPONS THAT ONLY THE UNITED STATES HAS THAT NEED TO BE SENT TO UKRAINE.

I HOPE THAT PATHWAY WILL BE QUICK, RAPID, AND FULFILLED FOR THE UKRAINIANS.

AND THE SANCTIONS AND TARIFFS THREATENED WILL ALSO START TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

AS DAVID RIGHTLY SAYS, THIS WON'T END UNTIL VLADIMIR PUTIN UNDERSTANDS HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WHAT HE SET OUT TO ACHIEVE, THE SUBJUGATION OF UKRAINE.

NOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS FINALLY AFTER SIX MONTHS COME TO THE UNDERSTANDING IT'S IN AMERICA'S INTEREST FOR PUTIN NOT TO SUCCEED, FOR UKRAINE TO SUCCEED, WE MAY BE STARTING ALONG A LONG PATH TOWARDS THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CONFLICT.

>> WHAT HAS BEEN NOTABLE IS THE EFFECTIVENESS THAT NATO SECRETARY GENERAL HAS HAD IN TRYING TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS WAS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE AND CULTIVATING THEIR RELATIONSHIP SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS COME BACK FOR A SECOND TERM.

HE'S TAKEN ON THE ROLE AS NATO SECRETARY GENERAL.

HE WAS CRITICIZED FOR BEING TOO SYCOPHANTIC, CALLING THE PRESIDENT DADDY.

BUT IT SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED.

I'LL PLAY FOR OUR VIEWERS HOW THIS WILL WORK AS LAID OUT.

>> WE MADE A DEAL TODAY, I'LL HAVE MARK SPEAK ABOUT IT.

WE MADE A DEAL WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE SENDING THEM WEAPONS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THEM.

>> IT WILL MEAN UKRAINE CAN GET ITS HANDS ON MASSIVE NUMBERS OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, BOTH FOR DEFENSE AND ALSO MISSILES, AMMUNITION, ET CETERA.

>> AS YOU LAID OUT EARLY WHAT THE BIDEN POLICY WAS, JUST PROVIDING WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, KNOWING AT SOME POINT GIVEN CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND THE QUESTION OF PROCUREMENT, HOW LONG THAT SUPPORT COULD HAVE LASTED.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS SHIFT WITH THE PRESIDENT FOCUSED ON PLACATING HIS BASE BY SAYING THE U.S.

ISN'T SPENDING MONEY BUT MAKING MONEY, SELLING WEAPONS TO OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES WHO, GIVEN WHERE THINGS ARE NOW, CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR OWN SAFETY, ARE WILLING AND ABLE NOW TO BUY THESE WEAPONS.

WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN A BETTER PLAN?

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT GOING FORWARD?

>> I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, A CLEAR JUDGMENT WAS MADE THAT THE BENEFITS OF SUPPORTING UKRAINE, INCLUDING COVERING THE COST OF MILITARY AID, FAR OUTWEIGHED THE COSTS, GIVEN THAT SUPPORTING UKRAINE IS FUNDAMENTALLY IN THE U.S.

INTERESTS, AND GIVEN THE SECURITY WE PROVIDED ENABLED US TO SUPPORT AND INVEST IN OUR MILITARY INDUSTRIAL BASE.

GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE EUROPEANS TO HELP PAY FOR THE PROVISION OF AID TO UKRAINE FROM THE U.S., AS LONG AS IT'S ABLE TO BE DONE RAPIDLY.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MONTHS OR YEARS LONG DELAYS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS DESCRIBED BUT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL, IT WOULD BE DAMAGING AND UNDERCUT UKRAINE'S ABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF.

IF WE CAN CREATE A MECHANISM TO CREATE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON TOP OF SANCTIONS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON RUSSIA, INCLUDING THE ELECTRIC SECTOR, I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOONER THAN 50 DAYS.

BUT ALSO WORKING WITH THE EUROPEANS, RECOGNIZING RUSSIAN ASSETS INSIDE EUROPE TO PAY FOR THIS, IT WILL TAKE LONGER THAN 50 DAYS TO AFFECT PUTIN AND PUSH HIM TO THE TABLE, BUT HOPEFULLY WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD TO AN OUTCOME TO END THE WAR ON TERMS ACCEPTABLE TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

>> THE SANCTIONS THREATENED ARE NOT WHERE CONGRESS IS IN THE BIPARTISAN BILL COMING THROUGH THE HOUSE AND SENATE WITH OVERWHELMING MAJORITY APPROVAL.

SECONDARY SANCTIONS LEVELLED AGAINST CHINA AND INDIA THAT PURCHASE OIL AND GAS FROM RUSSIA AT 500%, THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCING 100% SANCTIONS, TAKING EFFECT IN 50 DAYS.

WERE YOU HOPING FOR SOMETHING SOONER?

WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AS IT APPEARS RUSSIA IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR SUMMER OFFENSIVE.

>> I WOULD HAVE HOPED WE PUT THE SANCTIONS IN YESTERDAY RATHER THAN TOMORROW, BUT TODAY WOULD BE FINE AS WELL.

I THINK IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DEMONSTRATE, AS PRESIDENT TRUMP SEEMS TO WANT TO DEMONSTRATE, HE'S NOW HAD A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE WAR AND WHO'S AT FAULT AND HOW TO ADDRESS IT, WHICH INCLUDES MORE SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND MORE PRESSURE ON RUSSIA, THEN DOING THAT NOW RATHER THAN 50 DAYS MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE.

WHY WAIT 50 DAYS, WHAT IS HE GOING TO GET IN 50 DAYS IF HE DOESN'T GET WITH SANCTIONS NOW?

500%, 100%, BOTH ARE BIG NUMBERS.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT TRUMP IS SAYING NOW IS THAT HE WANTS TO DO IT UNILATERALLY RATHER THAN A MANDATE WITH CONGRESS.

THE BIG DEBATE ON CAPITOL HILL ABOUT THE SANCTIONS BILL IS THIS.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS MANDATES OR CONGRESS SAYS THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO.

WE KNOW WHERE DONALD TRUMP STANDS, HE WANTS THIS AT HIS OPTION TO TURN ON AND OFF THE SANCTIONS.

MY SENSE OF HIS RECORD ON THESE ISSUES IS THAT I HAVE MY WORRIES HE DOESN'T HAVE THE STAYING POWER, THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO PUSH AS HARD AS HE CAN.

HE WILL ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IF HE'S GOING TO SANCTION INDIA AND CHINA FOR BUYING ENERGY FROM RUSSIA, WHAT IS DOES HE DO ABOUT THE U.S. PURCHASE OF RUSSIAN URANIUM THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY?

THE JAPANESE PURCHASE OF L&G GAS FROM RUSSIA.

AND EUROPEAN CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE RUSSIAN SUPPLY OF GAS TO EUROPE.

ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS WHAT WILL MAKE THIS POLICY A SUCCESS OR NOT.

MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENED IS THAT WE NOW HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PRESIDENT WHO USED TO BE ON PUTIN'S SIDE.

NOW CLEARLY HAS DECIDED THAT PUTIN IS THE PROBLEM AND THEREFORE THE PRESSURE NEEDS TO BE ON HIM.

THAT IS FINALLY THE RIGHT PLACE WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE.

I'M GLAD.

>> THERE ARE RISKS WITH SECONDARY SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA, RETALIATION FROM CHINA AND RESPONSE FROM INDIA, WHO THE U.S. IS TRYING TO PULL MORE INTO ITS ORBIT TO ISOLATE CHINA.

THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO PURCHASE URANIUM EVEN THREE YEARS INTO THE WAR FROM RUSSIA AT THIS POINT STILL.

DAVID, ALSO THE FACTOR OF PRESIDENT PUTIN THINKING NO MATTER WHAT IS THROWN AT HIM, MORE WEAPONS, NEW SANCTIONS, A, HE'S WEATHERED SANCTIONS THUS FAR, AND B, HE STILL BELIEVES AND IS TOLD HE'S WINNING ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND CAN WIN THIS WAR.

ONLY WHEN UKRAINE IS WEAKENED ENOUGH TO COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE THAT PERHAPS HE WILL BE EARNEST IN WANTING TO BRING IT TO AN END.

AS ONE RUSSIAN EXPERT NOTED, HE WILL NOT SACRIFICE HIS GOALS IN UKRAINE FOR THE SAKE OF IMPROVING RELATIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HOW DOES THAT FACTOR IN?

>> I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP IS STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT BASED ON THE PRESS CONFERENCE.

PRESIDENT PUTIN WILL LIKELY TEST WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WILLING TO SUSTAIN THE POSTURE DESCRIBED TODAY.

IF PRESIDENT PUTIN WERE TO OFFER A DIRECT FACE-TO-FACE MEETING OVER THE FUTURE OF THE WAR OR A HALF MEASURE TO INDICATE HE'S WILLING TO TAKE AN OFF-RAMP WITHOUT DOING SO, WOULD THAT CAUSE TRUMP TO WAVER AND PUSH THE 50 DAYS TO 100 OR 150 DAYS AND WAR AND ATTACKS ON UKRAINE ARE ONGOING AND ECONOMIC COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN REALIZED.

RISK NUMBER ONE.

POINT TWO, THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY IS A FIERCE FIGHTING FORCE.

THE RUSSIAN MILITARY IS SUFFERING EXTRAORDINARY COSTS EVERY SINGLE DAY.

UKRAINE IS PRODUCING MILLIONS OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS, DRONES AND OTHERWISE, TO COUNTERACT INVADING FORCES ALONG WITH THE SUPPORT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.

IF WE ARE TO STAND WITH UKRAINIANS AND INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON RUSSIA, OVER TIME IT IS POSSIBLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION INSIDE OF RUSSIA THEY SHOULD NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH.

BUT TO GET THERE WILL TAKE WORK, TIME AND EFFORT.

>> RUSSIA ALSO STEPPING UP ITS DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE, BUT POINT MADE.

YOU LAY IT OUT BRILLIANTLY AND THOROUGHLY IN A NEW FOREIGN AFFAIRS PIECE, WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT THE FAST-MOVING DRONE INDUSTRY OF UKRAINE OUTPACING THAT OF THE WEST.

WHAT CAN WASHINGTON TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT UKRAINE WAS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH?

>> I BELIEVE STRONGLY THE UNITED STATES HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM UKRAINE'S INNOVATIVE DEFENSE BASE.

I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TOUR AND MEET WITH THE MANUFACTURERS, ON THE CUTTING EDGE WITH ADAPTABLE SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE ITERATED TO OVERCOME THE RUSSIAN COUNTERMEASURES, AND PRODUCE AT SCALE AND SPEED.

AS THE UNITED STATES, WE LACK THAT CAPABILITY CURRENTLY AND CAN LEARN FROM UKRAINE, THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COPRODUCING THESE CAPABILITIES INSIDE AMERICA TO SHORE UP OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND SUPPORT OTHER PARTNERS AND ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD WERE THEY TO FACE SIMILAR THREATS IN THE FUTURE.

>> IT IS NOTABLE THAT THE PRESIDENT, UNLIKE MARC RUTA, IS NOT ABLE TO SAY HE THINKS UKRAINE WANTS PEACE.

HE SAYS I THINK THEY DO, I'M NOT SURE.

WHICH RAISES YOUR EARLIER CONCERN ABOUT HOW COMMITTED THE PRESIDENT IS TO THIS NEW POLICY.

WHAT DOES SEEM TO HAVE REALLY CHANGED IS THE PRESIDENT'S COMFORT WITH NATO PICKING UP MORE SLACK HERE AND INVESTING IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

ARE YOU HEARING ANYTHING FROM CONTACTS IN EUROPE SUGGESTING THE SAME?

>> THERE'S A REASSURANCE THAT THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THAT RUSSIA IS A PROBLEM RATHER THAN PART OF THE SOLUTION.

THAT'S REASSURING.

THE WORRY HOWEVER, AND THIS DEAL BEING MADE WHERE NATO COUNTRIES PAY FOR EQUIPMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD SELL THEM, THEN GIVE TO THE UKRAINIANS, THE WORRY IS THAT MONEY WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR DEFENDING AN BOLSTERING THE DEFENSE OF THEIR OWN MILITARIES, SOMETHING THEY COMMITTED TO DO IN THE HAGUE SUMMIT A MONTH AGO.

AND SO THERE IS A TRADE-OFF HERE.

THE UNITED STATES IS WALKING AWAY FROM A THREE-YEAR-LONG -- TEN-YEAR-LONG EFFORT OF HELPING UKRAINE DEFEND ITSELF, AND IT IS NO LONGER WILLING TO DO THAT.

IT'S WILLING TO SELL WEAPONS TO OTHERS TO PROVIDE TO UKRAINE BUT NO LONGER WILLING TO BE PART OF IT.

BY DEFINITION THERE'S GOING TO BE LESS RESOURCES IN EUROPE TO BOLSTER THEIR DEFENSES THAT WOULD BE THERE.

IT'S A NET NEGATIVE AND PEOPLE IN EUROPE ARE WORRIED ABOUT IT.

>> FORCING EUROPEANS TO STEP UP THEIR OWN PROCUREMENT.

GOOD TO SEE YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>> HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN 16 DAYS, IRAN IS CARRYING OUT A MASSIVE EXPULSION OF AFGHAN REFUGEES FROM THE COUNTRY AND BACK INTO TALIBAN CONTROLLED AFGHANISTAN ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

TEHRAN SAID IT PLANNED TO REMOVE MILLIONS FROM THE COUNTRY WHO OFTEN WORK LOW-PAID JOBS THERE AS NICK PATON WALSH REPORTS.

>> Reporter: ONE OF THE LARGEST FORCED MIGRATIONS IN DECADES, AFGHAN MIGRANTS PUSHED OUT OF THE ROCK OF IRAN AND ITS MENIAL LOW-PAID LABOR TO THE HARD PLACE OF TALIBAN AFGHANISTAN, AND THE ECONOMIC HORRORS THEY FLED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HALF A MILLION IN JUST 16 DAYS, ACCORDING TO U.N.

FIGURES, A PEAK THAT BEGAN AT THE END OF THE CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL.

AND 88,000 IN 48 HOURS OF THE PAST WEEKEND BEFORE THE DEADLINE TO LEAVE EXPIRED ON SUNDAY.

YOU CAN SEE THE SCALE HERE BUT NOT FEEL THE HEAT.

>> THERE ARE DOZENS OF PEOPLE UNDER THE SUN, AND YOU KNOW HOW HOT IT CAN BE.

IT'S DIRE.

LAST WEEK IT WAS ABOUT 400 SEPARATED, UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN.

>> Reporter: SHE'S 11, TOLD SHE COULDN'T GO BACK TO BOOK.

WE SPENT SIX YEARS IN IRAN BEFORE THEY TOLD US TO APPLY FOR THE EXIT LETTER AND LEAVE.

WE HAD A LEGAL CENSUS DOCUMENT BUT THEY TOLD US TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY.

THEY'RE OFTEN ARRESTED AND DEPORTED WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO COLLECT BELONGINGS, SOMETIMES FROM YEARS OF WORKING IN IRAN FOR BETTER WAGES.

HE IS IN HIS 20s, WAS REMOVED.

FIRST THEY TOOK ABOUT $200 FROM ME, THEN SENT ME TO DETENTION AND FORCED ME TO PAY ANOTHER $50.

WOULDN'T GIVE US FOOD OR DRINKING WATER.

THERE ARE ABOUT 200 PEOPLE THERE.

THEY BEAT US UP AND ABUSE US.

FOR IRAN, IT'S A MATTER OF PRIDE.

THE MUSIC HERE SETS THE MOOD OF HOW STATE TV PRESENTS THE EXPULSIONS.

AND TEHRAN POLICE RELEASE IMAGES OF THE MANHUNT, CHASING AFGHANS, INTERROGATING THEIR EMPLOYERS.

[ SPEAKING IN A GLOBAL LANGUAGE ] THE ANSWER TO WHY NOW, WHY WHEN IRAN SHOULD BE RECOVERING FROM A BRUTAL 12-DAY CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL WOULD IT CHOOSE TO FOCUS ON UNDOCUMENTED LABORERS?

THERE'S ACCUSATIONS THAT AFGHANS SPY FOR ISRAEL.

EVIDENCE MAY BE LACKING BUT MESSAGING IS CLEAR.

THAT PERSON CONTACTED ME AND SAID HE NEEDED INFORMATION ON CERTAIN LOCATIONS.

HE ASKED FOR THEM, I PROVIDED THEM.

I GOT $2,000 FROM HIM.

IRAN DECIDED TO DO THIS MONTHS AGO, BUT PERHAPS NEVER IMAGINED THIS PACE, AND AFGHANISTAN, ALREADY STRUGGLING, PERHAPS NEVER IMAGINED THIS NEW CHALLENGE OF RETURNEES.

>> NICK PATON WALSH THERE.

BRING IN ZARA NADER WHO SPENT TIME IN IRAN AS A CHILD.

THANKS FOR JOINING US AND BRINGING LIGHT TO THIS STORY.

YOUR REPORTING.

HALF A MILLION PEOPLE SWEPT UP IN 16 DAYS, SOME PICKED UP OFF THE STREET.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE TIMING HERE?

IRAN SAID THEY'RE GOING TO START DEPORTING AFGHANS IN MARCH, BUT WE'VE REALLY SEEN IT ESCALATE FOLLOWING THE 12-DAY WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND IRAN.

IRAN EVEN ACCUSING AFGHANS OF COLLABORATING WITH ISRAEL.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING AND LEARNING?

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

I THINK TO TELL YOU WHY THIS IS HAPPENING IS IRAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN USING AFGHAN REFUGEES AS A SCAPEGOAT FOR ITS PROBLEMS.

PARTICULARLY IN THE 12 DAYS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND IRAN, WE SEE THAT IRAN WAS SHOWN AS A VERY BIG COUNTRY.

THIS ESCALATION OF DEPORTATION OF AFGHAN REFUGEES IS A WAY TO TAKE AWAY THE PUBLIC CRITICISM COMING FROM THE IRANIANS, ALSO TO BLAMING.

ACCUSATION IS ESPIONAGE IS NOT EASY.

SO THIS IS A WAY TO FORCE THE REFUGEES, TO BLAME THE WAR BETWEEN ISRAEL WAS BEGAN OR SUPPORTED BY AFGHAN REFUGEES, WHICH IS TOTALLY BASELESS.

TO TELL YOU HOW IT FITS WITH THE IRANIAN PUBLIC, THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF RACISM AGAINST AFGHAN REFUGEES IN IRAN.

I GREW UP AS A REFUGEE IN IRAN, I WAS DENIED EDUCATION AND CALLED OUT ON THE STREETS DIRTY AFGHAN, GO BACK TO YOUR COUNTRY.

IT'S NO SURPRISE THERE'S HUGE SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC FOR MASS DEPORTING THE REFUGEES AND BLAMING THEM FOR THE WAR.

>> TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR STORY.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR FIRSTHAND WHAT YOU EXPERIENCED, YOU AND SO MANY OTHER AFGHAN REFUGEES, WERE IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME OF THE TALIBAN, FLED TO IRAN.

YOU LIVED THERE AND EXPERIENCED HORRIFIC TREATMENT, CALLED HORRIBLE NAMES.

WENT BACK TO AFGHANISTAN FOLLOWING THE FALL OF THE TALIBAN, AND THEN WITH THEIR RETURN, YOU FINISHED YOUR EDUCATION AND TOOK REFUGE IN CANADA.

GIVE US A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR LIFE IN IRAN, THEN I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AFGHANISTAN LATER, TOO.

>> SURE.

I THINK THE WAY -- THE MESSAGE I HOPE TO CONVEY IS THAT BEING A REFUGEE IN IRAN IS A TRAUMA THAT I AM RELIVING TWO DECADES LATER.

I WAS IN IRAN IN THE LATE '90S WHEN THE TALIBAN TOOK OVER.

AND THE TREATMENT I EXPERIENCED THERE, MAYBE I DIDN'T KNOW AS A 6-YEAR-OLD CHILD WHO I WAS AS AFGHAN.

IT WAS THE IRANIAN PUBLIC THAT TOLD ME I WAS A NASTY AFGHAN, A SOURCE OF SHAME, I NEEDED TO GO BACK, I WAS USING THEIR RESOURCES, NEEDED TO GO BACK AND SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

TELLING THAT TO A CHILD IS THE BRUTAL THING YOU CAN DO.

MY JOB, I USED TO GO TO BAKERIES AND BUY BREAD AND EVEN IRANIAN ADULT WOMEN WERE PUSHING ME DOWN, CURSING ME, ABUSING ME.

THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENT I GREW UP.

NOW I SAW MANY BAKERIES IN IRAN WON'T SELL BREAD TO AFGHANS.

OUR RELATIVES WERE UNABLE TO GET MONEY BACK.

A FATHER OF THREE TOLD US HE WAS IN IRAN 15 YEARS AS A GARDENER.

HE WAS GIVEN THE DEPORTATION, HE WENT TO HIS EMPLOYER WHO OWED HIM $5,000, ASKED FOR THE MONEY, I WANT TO GO BACK TO MY COUNTRY.

HE TOLD HIM, YOU HAVE STOLEN FROM ME, IF YOU ASK FOR MONEY BACK, I'LL REPORT YOU TO THE POLICE.

THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

>> YOU STILL HAVE FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN IRAN?

>> I DO.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK WITH THEM?

>> THE INTERNET IS VERY DOWN, BUT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT AND SPEAK ONCE A WEEK OR SO.

MOST OF THE MEN ARE HIDING IN THE HOME, BUT WE'RE SEEING ESCALATION THAT WE'RE SEEING IN IRAN NOW.

USED TO BE DEPORTATION TARGET OF LONE MEN COMING TO IRAN FOR WORK.

RECENTLY WE'RE SEEING A SHIFT THAT IRAN HAS STARTED DEPORTING AFGHAN FAMILIES, MORE FOCUSED ON WOMAN.

IF THE WOMAN IS BEING DEPORTED ALONE TO AFGHANISTAN, A COUNTRY THEY CAN'T MOVE IN ALONG, CAN'T EVEN MOVE TO ANOTHER PROVINCE BY TALIBAN LAW OR WORK OR GO TO SCHOOL.

WE'RE SEEING A SHIFT.

MY FAMILY ARE FACING THIS DIFFICULTY OF HOW TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK, AND WITHOUT MONEY, HOW THEY CAN GO BACK TO AFGHANISTAN.

>> AND IN YOUR IMPORTANT REPORTING I ENCOURAGE OUR VIEWERS TO FOLLOW, YOU TALK ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE DEPORTATION OF SINGLE WOMEN, WIDOWS, TRAVELING WITHOUT A MALE GUARDIAN, BACK TO TALIBAN CONTROLLED AFGHANISTAN, PUTS THEM AT EVEN GREATER RISK.

I'M SURE IRAN IS AWARE OF THIS, THE RISK THEY'RE PUTTING ON THESE WOMEN.

THE FACT THIS MAY BE A NEW POLICY SUGGESTS WHAT TO YOU?

>> THIS SUGGESTS THEY REALLY INTEND TO DEPORT ALL AFGHAN REFUGEES THERE.

THE WOMAN IS BEING DEPORTED, THE MAN HAS TO COME BECAUSE THE WIFE CAN'T SURVIVE IN AFGHANISTAN ALONE.

IDEALLY FOR FAMILIES WITH A MAN IN THEIR LIFE.

BUT WOMAN WHO DON'T HAVE A MAN IN THEIR LIFE OR GUARDIAN TO ACCOMPANY THEM.

IN AFGHANISTAN, THEY'RE FACING A SYSTEM/GOVERNMENT I CAN ACCURATELY DESCRIBE AS GENDER APARTHEID.

THEY CAN'T TRAVEL ALONE WITHOUT A MAN.

THEY CANNOT BUY FOOD, GET AN EDUCATION, GET WORK.

HOW DO YOU LIVE HERE IF YOU CAN'T WORK AND EARN YOUR LIVING?

TO ADD TO THAT, WE HAVE REPORTED THAT EVEN WOMAN WHO NEEDS HEALTH CARE, THEY NEED THE GUARDIAN TO ACCESS HOSPITAL.

THAT'S THE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH IS DIFFICULT.

AFGHANISTAN HAS A LARGE NUMBER OF -- WOMEN HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD BECAUSE MANY WOMEN HAVE LOST THEIR HUSBANDS.

>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WOMEN SHOW UP AT THE DER OF AFGHANISTAN.

YOU TALK ABOUT THE GENDER APARTHEID AND HOW THEY'RE NOT TREATED AS HUMAN BEINGS, GOING TO SCHOOL, ABLE TO HOLD JOBS.

ARE THEIR LIVES AT RISK, TOO?

>> DEFINITELY.

THE COMPETITION OF THE CAMP IS VERY DIFFICULT.

HEARING FROM THE PEOPLE TELLING US BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER, BUT IN IRAN ESPECIALLY, SO MANY BEATINGS.

SEEN IRANIAN POLICE BEAT AFGHANS TO DEATH AND THEIR BODIES CARRIED OUT.

THEY'RE NOT BEING GIVEN FOOD OR WATER.

A WOMAN WHO WAS DEPORTED WITH A 4-YEAR-OLD CHILD ON HER ARM AND WENT TO BUY FORMULA AND IRANIAN POLICE ARRESTED HER AND DEPORTED HER TO AFGHANISTAN.

HOW THEY SURVIVE, FIRST THEY TOLD US THEY DON'T HAVE BASIC SERVICES AT THE BORDER, THEY CAN'T TRAVEL, DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO TRAVEL.

FOR THEM WE ARE LIVING IN AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, WE'RE AT MERCY OF STRANGERS.

TO TAKE US TO RELATIVE OR CALL TO COME AND PICK UP MIGHT BE A WAY.

BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE A RELATIVE, NETWORK OR SERVICES, I WORRY THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

>> AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF THE CAMPS AND DETENTION CENTERS, HEAT, LACK OF FOOD, EXTORTION, CHILDREN GOING WITHOUT MILK, FAMILIES SLEEPING NEXT TO TOILETS AND PEOPLE FAINTING IN THE SUN FROM THE DIRE HEAT.

THEN THE LIFE AND CONDITIONS WHEN THEY ENTER AFGHANISTAN, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES A FAILED STATE AT THIS POINT.

A MASSIVE INFLUX OF AFGHAN REFUGEES COMING TO BE FORCIBLY SENT BACK TO HOME COUNTRIES.

HALF A MILLION LEFT SINCE JUNE AND JULY 9th, 1.6 MILLION AFGHAN REFUGEES HAVE RETURNED FROM IRAN AND PAKISTAN THIS YEAR ALONG.

HOW IS A COUNTRY SO PLAGUED WITH ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS -- HOW ARE THEY COPING, ABLE TO COPE WITH A MASS INFLUX OF REFUGEES?

>> FIRST OF ALL WE WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE TALIBAN IS ILL-EQUIPPED TO MANAGE ANY CRISIS.

THEY'RE A BUNCH OF MULLAHS WHO ONLY TALK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE PEOPLE PRAY, MAKE THEM GO TO MOSQUE.

THAT'S THE PREOCCUPATION.

FOR REFUGEES COMING TO THE BORDER WITH NOTHING, I WORRY THIS WILL TURN INTO A HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE.

AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY ONE OF THE BIGGEST HUMANITARIAN CRISIS SINCE THE TALIBAN TOOK OVER.

I WORRY THIS IS GOING TO ADD TO THAT AND THE SITUATION WILL GET WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.

>> AND SO MANY COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH THE PROBLEM, PERPETUATE THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS BY WITHHOLDING AID, OR FEEL WHAT IS A BINARY OPTION THEY HAVE, SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN AN KEEPING THEM IN POWER.

BOTH TERRIBLE OPTIONS.

LAST WEEK THE -- ISSUED ARREST WARRANTS.

DO YOU SEE HOPE?

>> IN WAYS THIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST CONCRETE ACTION INTERNATIONALLY WE'VE SEEN, TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

THE QUESTION IS HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

THAT'S A BIG QUESTION.

TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE TALIBAN BEING IN CHARGE, COUNTRIES THINKING ABOUT WITHHOLDING HUMANITARIAN AID OR NOT.

THE TALIBAN ARE STEALING FROM HUMANITARIAN AID, AND THIS MORNING I HAVE A MEETING WITH MY TEAM, DISCUSSING THE STORIES THEY'RE WORKING ON.

ONE OF THE STORIES COMING IS PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GET 2,000 AFGHANI AT THE BORDER WHEN THEY ENTER, BUT SOME FAMILIES ARE ONLY GETTING 1,000.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 1,000?

WE DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S BARELY THE COST OF TRAVEL, THEY CAN BARELY USE IT TO GET THERE.

I WORRY THIS IS COMPLICATED AND THERE'S NO ONE SINGLE SOLUTION OR ANSWER FOR THIS.

>> WHAT MORE CAN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OR UNITED STATES DO TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS?

NOT ONLY IN HANDLING THE INTERNAL DYNAMICS IN AFGHANISTAN WHICH ARE DIRE BUT ALSO IN IRAN.

>> THERE'S HUMANITARIAN ATTENTION, ESPECIALLY MONEY, AID IS NEEDED AT THE BORDER.

I HOPE THERE SHOULD BE SOME MECHANISM TO ENSURE IT'S NOT GOING TO THE TALIBAN BUT TO THE PEOPLE MOST AT NEED.

THAT'S ONE LEVEL.

OTHER LEVEL WITH HUMANITARIAN PLAN IMPLEMENTED BY THE U.S., AFGHANISTAN'S BIGGEST HUMANITARIAN AID PROVIDER, IS THAT EVEN A SMALL ORGANIZATION, LIKE THE NEWS ROOM WE'RE RUNNING, HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE.

WE'VE BEEN PUNCHING ABOVE OUR WEIGHT TO DO REPORTING, ASSIGN REPORTERS TO THE STORIES.

IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, WE DON'T HERE ANYTHING.

WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AFGHANISTAN.

AFGHANISTAN IS THE WORST COUNTRY FOR WOMAN.

WHAT I HOPE YOUR VIEWERS UNDERSTAND IS THE SITUATION OR CRISIS IN AFGHANISTAN IS NOT JUST ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN BUT GLOBALLY.

IF IT'S NOT SEEN AS THAT, ALL OF US ARE LOSING SOMETHING, EVEN THOSE SITTING IN THE U.S. WOMEN NOT HAVING RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN, DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS TO EDUCATION CAN AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS IN THE U.S.

HOPING TO TAKE ACTION TO FORCE THE TALIBAN TO REVERSE THE LAWS.

>> KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND PUNCHING ABOVE YOUR WEIGHT.

IT'S IMPORTANT REPORTING YOU'RE DOING.

>>> NOW WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. IS ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS BEHIND MODERN CONSERVATIVISM IN AMERICA, A CLOSE FRIEND OF PRESIDENT REAGAN, WHO HE FEATURED ON HIS SHOW, "FIRING LINE."

AUTHOR SAM TANNENHOUSE HAS BEEN CRAFTING A BIOGRAPHY.

HE JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS HOW IT FITS INTO TODAY'S POLITICS.

>> THANK YOU.

WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE, THANKS.

>> WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, IS HE THE FOUNDER OF MODERN DAY POPULIST CONSERVATIVISM WE SEE OR WOULD HE BE APPALLED BY IT?

>> BOTH.

HE IS A FOUNDER OF THE CONSERVATIVISM WE SEE NOW.

A FOUNDER, DIDN'T DO IT ALONE.

BUT I THINK HE MIGHT BE A LITTLE DISPLAYED HOW IT LOOKS AND SOUNDS NOW.

AND BY THAT, WALTER, I MEAN -- YOU KNEW BILL BUCKLEY, HE WAS VERY MUCH A MAN OF LANGUAGE, ARGUMENTS AND IDEAS.

RIGOROUS DEBATE, YOU LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE.

I'M NOT SURE HE'D BE SO COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THE POLITICS WORKS TODAY.

>> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POPULISM, ANTI-ELITISM.

THERE WAS A WHIFF OF ELITISM TO BUCKLEY.

>> THERE'S THE PARADOX OF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY.

HIMSELF, SEEMED TO BE ALMOST ARISTOCRATIC PATRICIAN.

WE REMEMBER THE VOICE, STYLE, LANGUAGE, BOOKS.

BUT HE WAS INVOLVED WITH POLITICAL FIGURES LIKE JOSEPH McCARTHY, VERY CLOSE TO HIM.

ONE OF THE DISCOVERIES I MADE IN UNCOVERING HIS LIFE, INCLUDING MANY LONG INTERVIEWS WITH HIM, HOW DEVOTED HE STAYED TO JOSEPH McCARTHY.

IF YOU'RE AN ELITE PATRICIAN LIKE BILL BUCKLEY AND DON'T JUST WANT TO BE HEARD BUT WANT TO WIN THE BATTLE, WHICH INCREASINGLY LOOKED LIKE A CULTURAL BATTLE, POLITICIANS LIKE McCARTHY MIGHT BE GOOD FOR THAT.

>> ALSO ROY COHN, PUGNACIOUS LAWYER, TWO PEOPLE YOU THINK MIGHT HAVE REPELLED BUCKLEY.

WHY DID HE STAY LOYAL TO THEM TO THE END?

>> ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT EVEN NOW WE HAVE TROUBLE WRAPPING OUR MINDS AROUND, HOW MUCH IT WAS AGAINST RATHER THAN FOR.

IN THE BOOK HE WROTE WITH HIS BROTHER "McCARTHY AND HIS ENEMIES," THERE'S NOT A LOT ABOUT JOE McCARTHY BUT A LOT ABOUT HIS ENEMIES.

ROY COHN, JOE McCARTHY AND OTHERS, THEY INCLUDED RUSH LIMBAUGH WHO BUCKLEY SPONSORED IN THE 1990s, WERE ON THE SAME SIDE IN THE CULTURAL BATTLE.

>> BUT THE THROUGH LINE IS THEY'RE STRONGLY ANTI-COMMUNIST, BUCKLEY, ALMOST HIS ANIMATING FORCE.

DOES SOME OF THAT COME FROM HIS FATHER?

>> HIS FATHER WAS FROM SOUTH OF TEXAS, BOTH OF HIS PARENTS WERE FROM THE SOUTH, HIS MOTHER FROM NEW ORLEANS.

AND THEY RAISED THEIR CHILDREN TO BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEAL WAS A COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY EVENT/CATASTROPHE IN AMERICA.

EARLIER STILL, BUCKLEY'S FATHER WHO MADE HIS FIRST FORTUNE IN MEXICAN OIL LOST IT DURING THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION OF 1910 TO 1920.

AND WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY SR. WAS CONVINCED IT WAS A BOLSHEVIK PLOT, THAT CARRIED THROUGH TO THE 1930s.

THEN WORLD WAR II, THE GREAT DEBATE ABOUT INTERVENTION BEGAN, HIS FIRST CAUSE AS A TEENAGER.

>> HIS MOTHER FROM NEW ORLEANS, AND SENIOR, BOTH CATHOLIC BUT IN AN INTERESTING PART OF CATHOLICS, WHERE THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY THE ELITE RATHER THAN OUTSIDERS.

DID THAT INFORM THE YOUNGER BUCKLEY'S CATHOLICISM?

>> VERY MUCH.

ONE OF THE AMUSING LINES THAT RUNS THROUGH THE BUCKLEY FAMILY'S LIFE, THEY WERE ALWAYS COMPETITIVE WITH THE KENNEDYS, TWO VERY WEALTHY ATTRACTIVE FAMILIES OF NEW ENGLAND, IRISH CATHOLICS, AND THERE WERE DIFFERENCES.

BILL BUCKLEY HAD FUNNY LINES ABOUT THE KENNEDYS.

SAID I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE KEEP COMPARING US WITH THE KENNEDYS.

JOSEPH KENNEDY SR. WAS DEVOTED TO IRELAND, FIRST TIME MY FATHER SET FOOT IN IRELAND WAS TO GO TO THE HORSE SHOW.

THEY PULLED A CLASS LINE ON THE KENNEDYS, WHICH IS AMUSING BECAUSE THEN JACK WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT AND YOU HAVE TWO FAMILIES FROM THE SAME ROOTS.

>> YOU DO A GOOD ANALYSIS OF "GOD AND MAN AT YALE."

I REMEMBER READING THAT, IS HE A PRODUCT OF YALE OR REBEL AGAINST YALE?

>> HE'S BOTH, THAT'S THE GENIUS OF IT.

YOU'RE AN IVY LEAGUE MAN, YOU KNOW FROM THE 1930s IF NOT EARLIER, THERE WERE ATTACKS ON THE IVY LEAGUE FROM CONGRESS PEOPLE, HUAC, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, BUT BUCKLEY WAS THE BIGGEST MAN ON CAMPUS IN HIS YEAR, GRADUATED 1950.

TAPPED FOR ALL THE CLUBS, LAST MAN TAPPED FOR SKULL & BONES, HIGHEST ACCOLADE YOU COULD ACHIEVE.

HE WAS IN THE HIGHEST FRATERNITIES.

KNOWN FOR HIS WORK ON THE YALE DAILY NEWS.

IT'S POSSIBLE TO ARGUE HE WAS THE GREATEST CAMPUS JOURNALIST OF THE 20th CENTURY.

HE BECAME FAMOUS STILL AT YALE WRITING EDITORIALS.

ALL OF THAT MADE WILLIAM BUCKLEY.

THEN HE CLIMBED UP ON THE PLATFORM HE BUILT FOR HIMSELF AND DENOUNCED HIS PROFESSORS FOR BEING TOO LEFT WING IN ECONOMICS AND BEING ATHEISTS.

HE NOT ONLY NAMED NAMES AT THE PEAK OF McCARTHYISM, 1951, HE HAD TWO SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM.

ONE, ALUMNI STEP IN AND FIRE THE FACULTY THEY DIDN'T LIKE, AND SECOND WAS THAT DONORS SHOULD STOP CONTRIBUTING TO FUND DRIVES.

IN 1951, ALL THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM, MENTORS AND FRIENDS, CLOSE ASSOCIATES SAID BILL DO NOT WRITE THAT RIDICULOUS LAST CHAPTER.

BUT BUCKLEY KNEW THAT'S WHERE HE WOULD TOUCH THE NERVE, AND LO AND BEHOLD, ALL THESE YEARS LATER, IT'S NOT SHOCKING TO HEAR THAT SAME APPROACH, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS, TO THE IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITIES TODAY, ONLY COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND DISCONCERTING IN THE BOOK AND SURPRISED ME BECAUSE HE'S A GENTEEL MAN, WAS NOT ONLY A SEGREGATIONIST, BUT THERE'S A RACISM THAT CARRIES THROUGH WHAT HE DOES.

IN 1957, NATIONAL REVIEW, EDITORIAL ENTITLED WHY THE SOUTH MUST PREVAIL.

HE SAID WHITE COMMUNITY IN THE SOUTH IS ENTITLED TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES AS NECESSARY TO PREVAIL POLITICALLY AND CULTURALLY IN AREAS IT DOES NOT PREDOMINATE NUMERICALLY BECAUSE FOR THE TIME BEING IT'S THE ADVANCED RACE.

EVEN AFTER THE '64 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, HE DID NEGROS INTELLIGENCE AND PREJUDICE AND ARGUED FOR SEPARATE EDUCATION.

>> HE DID, HE DID.

ALL THE WAY UP AND UNTIL THE LATE 1960s, WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENED TO HIM, HE ACTUALLY GOT TO KNOW SOME VERY CHARISMATIC AND PERSUASIVE BLACK LEADERS, INCLUDING THE VERY YOUNG JESSE JACKSON.

ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES, ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT BILL BUCKLEY, HE WAS OPEN TO A NEW ARGUMENT AND IDEA.

IF YOU COULD BEAT THEM IN DEBATE OR EVEN IF HE WON, HE WANTED TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY.

IN THE EARLY PERIOD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND VIEWERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND, WHEN THAT EDITORIAL WAS WRITTEN IN 1957, IT WAS THE MOMENT THAT THE FIRST MODERN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS BEING DELIBERATED ON IN CONGRESS, THE ONE THAT LYNDON JOHNSON AND SENATOR RICHARD RUSSELL TANGLED OVER AND WERE SIGNED UNDER EISENHAUER, AND WHAT WAS MISSING WAS THE PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS.

IN THE WONDERFUL BOOK "THE MASTER OF THE SENATE," HE WALKS US THROUGH THE STEPS.

BUCKLEY AND COMPANY REALLY BELIEVED BLACK PEOPLE DID NOT DESERVE TO VOTE.

HE CONTINUED SAYING THIS FOR MANY YEARS, WITHOUT APOLOGY.

A SURPRISE FOR ME, WALTER, PEOPLE WERE LESS SHOCKED TO HEAR THAT THAN YOU MIGHT EXPECT THEM TO BE.

YOU WOULD THINK A GREAT LIBERAL LIKE ARTHUR SCHLESINGER WOULD BE APPALLED BY THAT.

BUT WOULD JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT POINT.

NOT TO JUSTIFY FOR EXCUSE IT, BUT IN THAT CLIMATE BUCKLEY COULD MAKE ASSERTIONS LIKE THAT AND NOT SEEM A DISREPUTABLE PERSON.

>> HE WAS NOT JUST A SEGREGATIONIST BUT RACIST.

VERY ANTI-COMMUNIST, SUPPORTS JOE McCARTHY, AND ISOLATIONIST WITH LINDBERGH, AGAINST INTERVENTION IN WORLD WAR II, EVEN ANTI-SEMITIC IN SOME WAYS.

BUT HE'S KNOWN FOR TRYING TO PURGE THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT OF BIGOTS, KOOKS, AND RACISTS.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT?

>> FOR ONE THING, HE LEARNED AND ACTUALLY GREW.

THE BUCKLEY OF AGE 40 IS NOT THE SAME AS THE BUCKLEY OF AGE 30.

ONE IMPORTANT THING THAT HAPPENED WAS A MAYORAL CAMPAIGN HE WAS INVOLVED IN.

IN SOME WAYS THE GREATEST THING HE EVER DID, HELPED TRANSFORM POLITICS.

IN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY HE CREATED IN NEW YORK IN 1965, HE CHALLENGED THE LIBERAL REPUBLICAN JOHN LINDSEY, A CONGRESSMAN WHO DECIDED TO RUN FOR MAYOR, AND A CLUBHOUSE DEMOCRAT FROM BROOKLYN, BUCKLEY RAN AS THE CONSERVATIVE.

AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS, BUCKLEY WAS A LISTENER AND OBSERVER.

HE LOVED MEETING PEOPLE.

AND AS HE WENT OUT ON A CAMPAIGN TRAIL, HE BEGAN TO MEET ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING BLACK VOTERS.

AND HE REALIZED, NO, YOU CAN ANT PUT THEM ALL IN A BLOCK AND ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ONE WAY.

WHICH WAS THE BASIS, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EARLY RACIST EDITORIALS.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEM ON AS INDIVIDUALS, AFTER ALL, BILL BUCKLEY IS A BIG SUPPORTER OF INDIVIDUALISM.

THAT MEANS YOU CANNOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ANYONE.

AND WITH "FIRING LINE," HE WANTED LIVELY DEBATE.

I SUGGEST TO VIEWERS GO ON YOUTUBE TO WATCH HIS CONVERSATION WITH MUHAMMAD ALI IN 1967 WHEN ALI WAS STRIPPED OF HIS HEAVYWEIGHT CROWN AND THREATENED WITH IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T SERVE IN THE VIETNAM WAR.

YOU HEAR BUCKLEY VERY RESPECTFULLY ENGAGING WITH ALI, NOT WHETHER HE WAS RIGHT TO DO THAT, HE RESPECTED THE COURAGE.

THEY DEBATED MALCOLM X AND THE NATION OF ISLAM.

BUCKLEY FOUND HIMSELF DEFENDING MALCOLM X AGAINST ALI.

>> AND HE HAD ELDRIDGE CLEAVER OVER TO HIS APARTMENT.

A VERY SOCIAL PERSON WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

>> AND BUCKLEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH A WORD, RIDICULE THEM IN COLUMNS AND PRINT, THEN SAY ELDRIDGE, WANT TO COME HAVE A DRINK?

AND BRING YOUR FRIEND, TIMOTHY LEARY, THE LSD EXPERIMENTER.

THAT'S HOW HE LIVED.

>> WROTE THREE COLUMNS A WEEK, LAUNCHED "FIRING LINE," A LOT.

BUT IN YOUR BOOK AN IMPLICIT QUESTION, ALMOST A CRITICISM.

HE WAS ALWAYS ON THE SURFACE DOING SO MANY THINGS.

ONE OF THE LINES YOU USED TO EXPLAIN, JUST DASHING OFF COLUMNS IN THE BACK OF A CAR, BOOKS HARDLY EDITED, HE DIDN'T GO DEEP BECAUSE HE WAS ENJOYING HIMSELF TOO MUCH.

I THINK THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> IN A TIME, IT WAS THE COLUMNIST GEORGE WILL, ONE OF MANY PROTEGES OF BILL BUCKLEY, WHO I DISCUSSED THIS WITH.

WHAT GEORGE SUGGESTED WAS, IN THESE TERRIBLE YEARS OF WATERGATE, VIETNAM, THE NIXON YEARS WHICH YOU KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT, AND ALL THE STRIFE AND POLARIZATION, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE FEELING TODAY, BUCKLEY WAS GOING TO LIVE OUT WHAT HE CALLED THE CONSERVATIVE DEMONSTRATION.

THAT WAS THE TERM HE CAME UP WITH WHEN HE WAS QUITE YOUNG.

THAT IS TO SAY, IF YOU READ OR LISTENED TO BILL BUCKLEY, SAW HIM ON THE MOVE, HEARD HIS VOICE, WAS BROUGHT INTO HIS WORLD, HEARD HIS CONVERSATION, THAT WOULD MAKE YOU MORE OPEN TO THE ARGUMENTS HE HAD TO MAKE RATHER THAN PRESENTING A REALLY COMPLEX, BEAUTIFULLY ARGUED, PHILOSOPHICAL TREATISE VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO READ.

HE WAS A MAN IN THE PUBLIC WORLD, BECAME FAMOUS IN HIS 20s, IMAGINED HIMSELF FACING LARGE AUDIENCES AND OFTEN DID.

THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS WOULD SHOW UP TO HEAR HIM LECTURE.

IN THE EARLY '60s, THAT'S HOW MUCH A CELEBRITY HE WAS.

HE THOUGHT IF HE COULD REACH YOUNG PEOPLE AND HELP THEM THINK, ARGUE, MAYBE ONE OF THEM WOULD BECOME THE THINKER AND PROPHET HE KNEW HE DIDN'T HAVE IT IN HIMSELF TO BE.

IN THE END I SAW THAT TO BE A GENEROUS SELF-ASSESSMENT, WHICH MORE OF US COULD STAND TO MAKE PROBABLY.

>> IN SOME WAYS YOU CALL HIM A PERFORMING IDEA OLOG, PERFORMATIVE, TODAY SO MANY ARE ON BOTH SIDES.

SIMPLY DOING IT IN PERFORMATIVE WAY, IS THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING?

>> ASKING WHAT WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY WOULD HAVE DONE ON TWITTER, HE WOULD HAVE BURNED IT UP, MORE TWEETS THAN DONALD TRUMP AND ELON MUSK COMBINED.

HE WAS SO FACILE AND QUICK, LOVED THE ONE LINERS, FAMOUS FOR THEM.

I THINK IN SOME WAY HE DID CREATE THAT, AND ONE OF THE EFFECTS THAT HIS STORY HAS HAD NOW THAT IT'S BEING DISCUSSED AGAIN IS THAT IT MAKES THE WHOLE TRAJECTORY OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT AND CONQUEST LOOK VERY DIFFERENT.

BECAUSE NOW, IF YOU THINK OF THE TOUCHSTONES AS BEING JOSEPH McCARTHY, RONALD REAGAN, BILL BUCKLEY, AND DONALD TRUMP, WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON.

THEY'RE MASTERS OF THE MEDIA, OF PERFORMANCE.

THEY DON'T SO MUCH COME OUT OF POLITICS AS CONQUER IT FROM THE OUTSIDE.

THEY'RE CULTURAL FIGURES.

AND CULTURE AND POLITICS INTERTWINE.

BUCKLEY WAS THE FIRST TO SEE IT.

AND WITH THAT ALL OUR HISTORY AND CURRENT POLITICS LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT.

WE THINK -- WE GIVE PRESIDENTS LICENSE TO DO THINGS THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR.

AND BUCKLEY SEEMED TO FEEL THAT'S WHERE THINGS WERE GOING.

HE INTUITED IT.

HE WAS A MAN OF PERCEPTION, WITH LONG ANTENNAE THAT PICKED UP WHERE THE CULTURE WAS GOING.

>> THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> WHAT A PLEASURE.

>>> FINALLY, YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, THIS YEAR'S WIMBLEDON CHAMPION IS 23-YEAR-OLD STAR JANIK SINNER, HE AND WOMEN'S WINNER IGA SWIATEK SHARED A DANCE, A TRADITION.

SINNER IS SURE TO HAVE A HUGE FUTURE AS WELL AFTER HE BEAT TWO-TIME DEFENDING CHAMPION CARLOS CARAZ.

HE WAS ONCE ON ACCOMPLISHED SKIER, TOO, HIS FIRST LOVE ACTUALLY.

>> I HAVE MY HOUSE HERE AND HERE IS THE OTHER WITH MY GRANDPA, THEY COOKED FOR ME.

I HAD TO WEAR THE SKI STUFF BECAUSE I WENT TO SKI IMMEDIATELY, THEN TWICE A WEEK I WAS PLAYING TENNIS.

THAT WAS IT.

>> A FIRST RANKED YOUTH SKI RACER BEFORE HANGING UP SKIS FOR THE TENNIS RACKET AT AGE 12.

QUITE A SPORTS TALENT.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH AND JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW.