Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
U.S. Military Developing Plans to Target Iran's Strait of Hormuz Defenses if Ceasefire Fails. Trump: "I Have All the Time in the World to Reach Iran Deal; Trump Orders Navy to "Shoot and Kill" Mine- Laying Boats in Strait; U.S. Special Forces Soldier Arrested After Allegedly Winning $400,000 Bet On Maduro Raid; Former Hostage Negotiator Speaks With CNN On Iran Talks; NY Times: Trump Admin Said To Be In Talks To Send Afghans Who Aided U.S. Forces To Congo. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired April 23, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Air defenses against Iranian drones.
We're witness to a global robotic arms race today. The United States, Europe, Russia and China are all developing robot systems and tactics. But the pressures on its front lines have given Ukraine an advantage in figuring out what war might look like with more robots and less blood.
Melissa Bell, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: And thanks so much for joining us. AC360 starts now.
[20:00:37]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": And good evening from the newsroom.
Breaking news tonight in our CNN Global War coverage. President Trump says, don't rush me when asked how long he'd wait for a unified response from the Iranians and tells Americans to anticipate spending more money on gasoline "for a little while," he said that late today in the Oval Office. He was also asked about using a nuclear weapon against Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Sir, would you use a nuclear weapon against Iran? You posted on truth social --
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, we don't need it. Why do I need it? Why would a stupid question like that be asked? Why would I use a nuclear weapon when we've totally, in a very conventional way, decimated them without it? No, I wouldn't use it. A nuclear weapon should never be allowed to be used by anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The reporter asking seemed to be referencing the President's previous social media post that a, "whole civilization will die tonight."
CNN also has new reporting that the U.S. Military is developing new plans to target Iran's capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz in the event that the current cease fire falls apart. That's according to multiple sources. The plans include potential attacks against Iran's small, fast attack boats, their mine laying vessels and other asymmetric assets.
Now, earlier in the day, the President posted on social media, "I have ordered the United States Navy to shoot and kill any boat. Small boats, though they may be, their naval ships are all 159 of them at the bottom of the sea. That is putting mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. There is to be no hesitation. Additionally, our minesweepers are clearing the Strait right now."
Meantime, the department of defense posted this video today, which they say is the boarding of a sanctioned tanker in the Indian Ocean transporting oil from Iran, quoting from "The Post," "We will continue global maritime enforcement to disrupt illicit networks and interdict vessels, providing material support to Iran wherever they are."
At the Oval Office event, the President echoed his justification for extending the ceasefire, saying it wasn't clear who was leading Iran, something he also posted to social media earlier in the day. "Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is. He writes they just don't know. The infighting is between the hardliners who have been losing badly on the battlefield and the moderates who are not very moderate at all, but gaining respect is crazy."
In response to that, Iran's President and Parliament Speaker, who is the country's lead negotiator, issued identical statements on social media, which read in part, in Iran, there are no radicals or moderates. We are all Iranian and revolutionary, and with the iron unity of the nation and government, with complete obedience to the Supreme Leader of the revolution, we will make the aggressor criminal regret his actions.
Calling for peace once again was Pope Leo on the way back from his Africa tour, he was asked about the war in Iran and answered in Italian. "As a pastor, I cannot be in favor of war and I would like to encourage everyone to make efforts to seek answers that come from a culture of peace, not hatred and division."
For more on all of this, I want to start with Kristen Holmes at the White House. So, how's the White House squaring the President's order to attack Iranian boats with his assertion the cease fire has been extended as diplomatic efforts continue.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Look, this is what we've seen from President Trump, really since the beginning of this. This idea of maximum pressure while he's saying negotiations are going great, at the same time, he's threatening to wipe out an entire civilization. And it's not clear whether or not this is actually working. Of course, as we know, that second round of negotiations never materialized, the White House senior officials, President Trump saying it's all because of the fact that Iran is so fractured right now that they couldn't come up with a unified proposal.
Now, I will also remind you that Iran was basically dead silent on replying to the U.S. The interpretation when it comes to the fractured government, that is what we're hearing from White House officials. That's why they believe that they never got a unified response. But President Trump is going to continue with this rhetoric, saying that he's going to blow up these boats. And this is really also going to come down to the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump is going to keep the blockade, because when you talk to these U.S. officials, they really believe that that is the most leverage that the United States has right now. They cannot give that up. So, he has to flex that muscle there.
But again, it is unclear if this is all going to work. If anything is going to come out of this, because we are now in a position where we have this indefinite ceasefire. You hear President Trump saying repeatedly that he's not going to put a timeline on it, that he doesn't feel any pressure, that the Iranians feel all the pressure to end this war.
And in fact, Anderson, he even took it a step further because he was asked about Americans should they anticipate having to continue to pay such astronomical prices at the gas pump. And he said, yes, for a little bit longer, but that's better than Iran having a nuclear weapon.
And I can tell you from the people I'm talking to, particularly across America right now, those gas prices are hurting people. And also, Republicans who are running for reelection, they know that's going to hurt their campaigns come November.
[20:05:23]
COOPER: Kristen Holmes is at the White House. Thanks very much. Joining me now in the newsroom, CNN senior military analyst and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis. Thanks so much for being with us.
You're the President talking about the shoot and kill the small boats. Any smaller boat laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz strategically how capable are we in doing that?
ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Strategically, what we ought to be doing is going after these small boats before they get underway. And that's a hard target because there's a lot of them, they're distributed, but we ought to go after the small boats. We ought to go after the mine laying capability. We ought to go after the ballistic missiles.
So, try and shut down that Iranian capability to control the Strait.
COOPER: It was a small boat that hit the USS Cole --
STAVRIDIS: It was, correct and any of those small boats can pack a pretty big punch against a merchant tanker in particular, or even, as you point out, Anderson, against one of our warships. So, we've got to take steps on the mind laying piece of this. If we encounter a vessel actually laying mines in the Strait, that is a hostile act, and we should warn them, capture them, and if necessary, attack them, because that is the key to unlocking this Strait is to ensure the mines do not dominate --
COOPER: The President was talking about our minesweepers are working. There was reporting that the U.S. had decommissioned the minesweepers. I think there were six of them that were four. There were four that were decommissioned just before this began, I think in January.
STAVRIDIS: Correct.
COOPER: They were in the region.
STAVRIDIS: Yes.
COOPER: Do you know why they were discontinued? What was the rationale for that?
STAVRIDIS: Yes, I do.
COOPER: And so, what when the President says our minesweepers are working, do we have minesweepers?
STAVRIDIS: We do, the four that were decommissioned were old they were obsolete. But frankly, I bet admiral brad cooper, the commander, wishes he had them right now. But they were moved on simply an accident of timing. We do have new minesweepers; these are called Littoral Combat Ships. They're pretty capable. We've got three of those headed toward the Gulf, more coming in. Our allies have minesweeping.
Final thought here, Anderson, this is where our European allies could help us. They don't have to drop bombs on Tehran. They could help us clear that straight using their minesweepers. NATO has excellent minesweepers.
COOPER: But they're not doing that at this point.
STAVRIDIS: They're not and my view, they ought to make a pragmatic decision here to step up and be part of clearing the Strait. I think ultimately, they will.
COOPER: The President said that that he had tripled up level. That was his phrase. The mines, the minesweeping. Do you do you know what that would mean?
STAVRIDIS: As far as I know, we have three minesweepers currently assigned in the Gulf. So, if you're tripling them, that means you're adding six more. I have not seen formal declaration from the Department of the Navy indicating that. But again, if I'm Admiral Brad Cooper in charge of this mission, I am pounding the table in the Pentagon saying, get me the minesweeper.
COOPER: Let's get the priority.
STAVRIDIS: Absolutely.
COOPER: The President also wrote on social media today that he has all the time in the world that Iran doesn't. There's a lot of people who have looked at this and said, Iran time is at least from their vantage point, if they're willing to, they don't care about their people, they're willing to fight against in the Iran-Iraq war for eight years, taking tremendous losses and suffering tremendous hurt to their economy and they kept going. Do you think time favors them? Just because of the nature of their regime?
STAVRIDIS: Well, you'll remember this from Afghanistan. The Taliban used to say, Americans, you have all the watches, we have all the time. And there's a kind of a feel of that here. President Trump definitely feels that clock ticking midterms coming, high gas prices, a deeply unpopular war. But, Anderson, there's a clock ticking in Iran as well. The clock ticking there is their oil infrastructure, their economy. That's why the administration seeks to really choke that off. If you can take those resources away, you really can constrain the Iranian decision making. That, I think, is the key here.
COOPER: Whatever happens here, will a U.S. naval presence need to be maintained in the Strait for minesweeping for a long time to come? At the very least, even regardless of whatever the security situation is?
[20:10:02]
STAVRIDIS: I think so, and don't forget, we've had a significant naval presence in the Gulf stationed in Bahrain for decades. It used to be kind of small. We ramped it up over the last few decades. I would say coming out of this war, we're going to need minesweeping and we need guided missile frigates and destroyers to escort ships in and out of that Strait. We're going to have to rebuild the confidence for the civilian mariners to come in and out of that Strait. That's going to take a pretty significant U.S. navy presence.
COOPER: In terms of, I mean, the U.S. has advocated for and fought for freedom of the seas for as long as it's history.
STAVRIDIS: Yes.
COOPER: You know, Ambassador Crocker will be on later, the last time he was on this program, he talked about perhaps the best outcome in the short term, given all the realities of what's going on, is a status quo, a return to a status quo in in the Strait of Hormuz, if a new status quo is Iran has effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, is that acceptable in any realm?
STAVRIDIS: Not in my world. And, you know, the admiral is going to say this, but it is freedom of navigation, freedom of the high seas, that the Strait of Hormuz connects two international bodies of water. And under international law, going back centuries, that is an open Strait. It enjoys the right of transit passage. So, I think it would be a complete mission failure if we turned over the Strait of Hormuz to the Iranians.
COOPER: Admiral Stavridis, thank you so much, really appreciate it.
STAVRIDIS: It's a pleasure.
COOPER: Up next, as our global coverage continues, President Trump claiming all the pressure is on Iran, as we've been talking about, he said today they're hurting financially due to the U.S. blockade on its ports. Does that need to end for a new round of peace talks, however?
Also later, a U.S. Special Forces soldier who helped capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro arrested and charged for allegedly betting on the operation on a prediction market online, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars like $400,000.00 on Polymarket, details on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:16:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're not doing well economically, financially, they're not doing any business because of the blockade. They want to make a deal. We have been speaking to them, but they don't even know who is leading the country. They're in turmoil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That's President Trump speaking today at the White House, the question now, where does this leave negotiations? Joining us is CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk, who held senior National Security posts under the last four Presidents, including President Trump and veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon.
Ambassador, you heard what the President has been saying, that he's not under a time crunch, that Iran is. Do you think that is the case? And what do you make of his pledge to attack small Iranian boats in the Strait?
RYAN CROCKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, PAKISTAN, SYRIA, KUWAIT AND LEBANON: Well, clearly, Iran is under economic pressure. Are they going to cave to it? I would say absolutely not. When you look at the current Iranian senior leadership, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, are the new Iranian National Security advisor, the latter the military advisor to the Supreme Leader, Mohsen Rezaee. These are all hardened veterans of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and more to the point, they're all hardened veterans of the Iran-Iraq war.
The Rezaee commanded the IRGC throughout that war, eight years. And if you want to talk about hardship, economic damage, and the need for courage and perseverance, well, that would be the poster child for it. So, these guys are not going to back down, no matter how great the economic pressure is. I think the President is doing the only thing he can do by attacking everything the Iranians put into the Strait of Hormuz as the admiral said earlier, the one thing we cannot do is allow this to become the Strait of Iran.
COOPER: Can you just talk about because, I mean, a lot of us don't remember the details on the Iran-Iraq war. It went on. I think it was eight years. Iran suffered tremendous casualties and great economic pain, but they persisted even when they were doing very badly on the battlefield. Is that correct?
CROCKER: That is correct, it was a 1980 to 1988. It was a vicious ground war, trench warfare, kind of like the Western Front, except for eight years instead of four, as it was in World War I. And all of the current leaders of Iran came of age in that conflict. Again, Mohsen Rezaee, the military advisor to the new Supreme Leader commanded the IRGC during that conflict, and he famously advised Khamenei in 1988 not to accept a cease fire to fight on.
So, you know, you've got to know your adversary and these adversaries have been through tougher battles in this one. They're not going to back down, which means we have got to step up to this, doing whatever it takes to ensure that they don't maintain control over the Strait as the admiral said earlier.
COOPER: Brett, I mean it is --
CROCKER: And it's not going to be easy.
COOPER: It is, I think, so important to think about that. I mean, they engaged -- in trench warfare over the course of eight years. I mean, that says a lot about what they may be willing to withstand. And again, they don't care about their own people.
[20:20:09]
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Yes, Anderson, you know, you can do the economic indicators. So, Iran before this war, according to the IMF, their economy was contracting by six percent. Their inflation was 60 percent and they've taken a complete beating and I think this blockade on Iran is going to have a real bite. It's going to really start to basically degrade their entire oil infrastructure. But it's not about the empirics, Anderson, it's something you and I talked about earlier in this in this conflict and the first principles of warfare and Carl Von Clausewitz on war is a test of wills, and wills are intangible. They have -- they're about political culture and resolve. And that Iran-Iraq war experience that Ryan just mentioned is really critical.
If you look at who is being replaced in the Iranian system as a certain leader is killed, it's all that generation. Theres not a new generation of leaders being appointed from the Iran-Iraq war. And Khamenei, after eight years of that war, when he signed on to a U.N. brokered ceasefire, he said, I have to drink from the poisoned chalice. He said, the only people that are happy are the martyrs in the war. And he really did it reluctantly, as Ryan just said.
So, that is the political culture. Now, that said, there is a breaking point. Everybody has an eventual breaking point and the hope here is that we can stretch time. And I thought the fact that President Trump today said, hey, I'm in no hurry, time is on our side, that's the right message. But I know the Iranians don't believe it. They believe time is on their side. They will, six months until midterm elections. To the Iranians, six months is nothing, it's a blip.
So, they're prepared to wait this out. And I just, we're kind of back to where we were test of wills, the Iranians control the Strait. And I very much agree with Ryan. This cannot end with Iran in control of that Strait. So, somehow, we have to break this impasse.
COOPER: So, ambassador, if time, you know, if there's a different conception of time and a different willingness to wait this out from between the U.S. Administration and the Iranian administration, does that give Iran an advantage here?
CROCKER: It does, unless we can muster the strategic patience for the longer haul. Look, in many respects, this is a 43-year war. It began for me April 18, 1983, when the Iranians blew up our embassy in Beirut, I survived that. Six months later, they were -- partly to blowing up our embassy in our Marines at the Beirut Airport. So, this is a long war, and I think we've taken all the varnish off of it. Now, with this current Iranian leadership and their actions, we've got to commit ourselves to taking as long as it takes in whatever it takes to, at a minimum, reopen the Strait. And that means being clear with our Arab Gulf partners, that were in this for the long haul. They've got to stick with us. It means reaching back out to NATO and the European community to say the same thing, that all of our interests are affected, and we've got to just buckle down and stick it out. And it means communicating particularly to the American people the same thing.
COOPER: Yes, I mean, exactly what --
CROCKER: Exactly what President Trump did not do. To the ambassador's point, if, you know, if that is what the U.S. is wanting to do, which is okay, this is actually a battle. And, and it's going to be a long haul reaching out to allies at this stage would seem to be a wise idea.
MCGURK: Absolutely, yes.
COOPER: I mean, to try to build what wasn't built before beginning this.
MCGURK: Absolutely, one thing we can do that we have not done. Look, we have a blockade on Iran. Iran has a blockade on basically the world. That's what they're doing in the Strait of Hormuz. And the interests align with us and much of the world to put pressure on Iran to get that straight open. That includes particularly those Asian economies, Japan, South Korea and China and Admiral Stavridis mentioned the NATO militaries and navies. They have tremendous mine clearing other capabilities. We use them in the red sea and elsewhere. I've talked to some European counterparts today. They said the politics is so difficult in Europe because of the way the United States has handled this conflict.
It's become an Iran versus us when it truly is something here that implicates the entire world. So, I think a smart move would be put aside the rhetoric about NATO allies and those were disappointed, and try to sign up some of the more capable to help us out in the Strait and help us with the mine clearing to get that international passage open and apply diplomatic pressure on Iran, multilateral, including with those Asian economies and frankly, with China.
I mean, President Trump is heading to China here in a few weeks. And, you know, Xi Jinping can put pressure on Iran. I think you want to use all of that military pressure to help enforce reinforce what we're doing through the blockade. Otherwise, it's just the U.S. versus Iran and this thing is just going to continue to drift.
COOPER: Brett McGurk, Ambassador Crocker, really good discussion. Thank you so much, appreciate it.
Up next, U.S. Special Forces soldier involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He's been arrested for allegedly betting on the operation in an online prediction market, making $400,000.00.
Later, according to "The New York Times" Afghans who were evacuated from their country because they helped the United States war effort are now being refused entry into this country by the administration, and now they face being sent either to the Democratic Republic of Congo or back to Afghanistan, where they may incur the wrath of the Taliban, who they recently helped the U.S. fight against.
We'll be right back with more on that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:34]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back, a U.S. Special Forces soldier who was involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been arrested and is facing five criminal charges. Prosecutors allege that Master Sergeant -- his name is Gannon Ken Van Dyke, bet on the operation and won $400,000 in profits. They claim he opened an account in late December on Polymarket, which is an online prediction market, placed about $32,000 on a long-shot bet that Maduro would be out by January.
He allegedly made 13 bets in the days before the capture. Now, the case is raising questions about insider trading on prediction markets on the Iran war. A reporter asked President Trump about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these prediction markets and potentially getting rich? DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I don't know about it, but was he betting that they would get him or they wouldn't get him?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It sounds like he was betting on his removal from office, that Maduro would be removed.
TRUMP: It's interesting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it sounds like he was involved in the operation.
TRUMP: That's like Pedro's betting on his own team. I'll look into it. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There are also bets, though, that are being placed as well on the Iran conflict, too, and there have been some trappings where people suspect that there's insider trading happening on these prediction markets around the war. Are you concern --
TRUMP: Well, you know, the whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: The President later adding, quote, "I don't like it conceptually, but it is what it is."
Joined now by two combat veterans, Margaret Donovan is a former Army captain and a JAG officer. She's also a former federal prosecutor. Adam Kinzinger is a former Republican congressman and Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel.
Margaret, what is your reaction, a, to the arrest? How unprecedented and concerning is it and the President's reaction to it, it is what it is, he doesn't like it, but the whole world is becoming a casino?
MARGARET DONOVAN, U.S. ARMY COMBAT VETERAN, SERVED IN IRAQ AND SYRIA: Well, look, I read the indictment and I think it's a really righteous case. This is particularly troubling conduct when we're at a moment where our military's credibility is in question, to say the least, in many of our operations. And so I think it's really important for the Department of Justice to bring cases like this and to show that we are willing to respond to corruption.
Keep in mind that Maduro has his own criminal case in SDNY right now, and no doubt his attorneys are going to point to this and say, see how corrupt the arrest was. So I think it's really important that the DOJ pursues this. It's a strong indictment. It looks like their evidence is very reliable, probably from Polymarket itself and the soldiers' Google account. And I suspect that, you know, this will be a pretty important case going forward in terms of how the DOJ can deal with these Polymarket bets.
COOPER: Congressman, were you surprised? I mean, that someone, I mean, a special forces, you know, an operator at that level and trusted with some of the biggest and most sensitive military plans would allegedly do this?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't want to say I'm surprised because, I mean, it's -- this is very tempting, right? If you know that this is going to happen and, you know, you're working every day to get by, it's -- you know, people are tempted. They're humans. And -- but it's wrong.
And so this is good, you know, that obviously they're going after it. But this needs to be more than just one soldier. There really is some questionable stuff that's been happening, actually, not just in the predictive markets, but especially in the stock markets that seem to possibly be from people that are at least close to the decision making.
So, look, Polymarket and Kalshi have a real PR issue on their hand if they want to keep surviving, because I think people are starting to understand that this is a pretty bad situation. Kalshi, I think, went after a few people here recently.
But, look, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you can bet on actual human decisions that the human himself or herself can actually make. You know, if you're Pete Rose betting on baseball, you can't guarantee an outcome. But if you're like the senator -- I remember one specifically said, will a U.S. senator visit Syria before June?
Well, if you're a U.S. senator and you can go visit Syria, the temptation is you can bet on that or maybe you have a cutaway, somebody you know that can bet and you get a little side profit from it. This is a -- it's a very dangerous thing because it has the potential of starting to impact decisions based on profit and not based on what's necessarily right for the country.
COOPER: Margaret, I mean, the prediction markets are kind of predicated on this notion that there is some insider knowledge, you know, that somebody in there knows something, and whether it's some investor who has just done a whole lot of research and thinks they have an edge.
[20:35:12]
What if the Maduro regime had somehow caught wind of unusual trades online? Could that have, you know, I mean, maybe it's far-fetched to think that would have spooked Maduro and caused him to go into hiding or change his security or something. But the kind of the ripple effects or the future problems this may raise, I'm not even sure we kind of really fully understand them yet.
DONOVAN: Yes, and I wouldn't even say, Anderson, that it's that far- fetched that this could be a problem. If you're just looking for basically an aberration in the Polymarket, I think this really becomes, in addition to the concerns, the very serious concerns that Adam just laid out, this is a national security issue.
So if you have bets on, for example, if something's going to happen in Cuba, and all of a sudden there's a spike in that bet the night before something happens, and that's really the crux of this case. These are financial charges that are in this indictment, but this is really a national security case.
This is a soldier who had really sensitive information about a highly guarded operation that only a few people, a handful of people within the military were entrusted with. And he used that information. He disclosed that information on basically an open market that anybody could observe.
And I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure out dumping, you know, $30,000 into a wildly low bet on a high profile capture like Maduro. That could tip people off very much so. So I think that it really kind of this case in particular and others, they blend into national security issues.
COOPER: Congressman, do you think all government officials, elected military civilians, should be banned by law or an executive order or bill passed by Congress from taking part in, you know, prediction markets? Is that a solution --
KINZINGER: Yes.
COOPER: -- or would family members then just be tipped off?
KINZINGER: I mean, you could, but I think you ban it all. I mean, look, it's -- you know, there's rules around Congress trading stocks. You know, we have to show it and everything. There's a lot of discussion about banning Congress from trading stocks.
This is more dangerous. If you're in Congress, you know, if you're making a bet on a stock market, you may have a little insider information like, hey, we're getting ready to introduce a bill and maybe that moves the market. You don't necessarily have like really insider information there.
This you do. And so, yes, I think the sites, if they were smart, they would get ahead of this and ban it. They already have restrictions, but there's got to be a way to follow through on that and be strong about it. But, you know, I'll double check what Margaret said there. This is a real national security issue.
Your example, Anderson, is not a -- it not far-fetched. And I think it's important that we remember whether it's this to some extent, but especially on some of the questions on the stock market, there are losers on the other end of this bet.
COOPER: Yes.
KINZINGER: It's not just rich people with a bunch of money playing poker. There are losers, and it could be your 401(k).
COOPER: Adam Kinzinger, Margaret Donovan, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Up next, I'll speak to a former top hostage negotiator under both the Trump and Biden administrations who says that Iran's negotiators are tougher than Russia's and China's. Also ahead, according to the New York Times, Afghans who helped U.S. forces and were evacuated from Afghanistan are being refused entry now into the United States by the Trump administration and face -- being told they are going to be sent back either to Afghanistan or to the Democratic Republic of Congo. More on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:43:20]
COOPER: My next guest warns that the Iranians are tougher negotiators than the Russians, the Chinese and even the Taliban. Roger Carstens is the former Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs under Presidents Trump and Biden. He helped negotiate the release of Americans from Russian custody in several high-profile cases like Brittney Griner, Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovich and Trevor Reed.
In 2023, he helped free five Americans from Iran. Now he's advocating for the release of six U.S. citizens detained there, including two of the people you see here, Kamran Hekmati and Reza Valizedeh, hoping their freedom could be part of a larger peace deal.
Roger Carstens joins me now. Roger, thanks for being with us. We -- you mentioned that the Iranians are tougher negotiators than the Russians, Chinese, even the Taliban in your experience. Can you explain that?
ROGER CARSTENS, FORMER SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL ENVOY FOR HOSTAGE AFFAIRS: I think with the Iranians, you never really quite get to the end state until the very end. And what I mean by that is, if you were to take a look at not only our negotiations to bring back hostages, but those of other countries, the Iranians would take forever to finally get to a deal.
And then the waning hours, when people were actually moving airplanes to pick up their hostages and do whatever exchange and deals they have made, the Iranians would start, you know, moving the goalposts even at that point. And we actually --
COOPER: In what way would they move the goalposts at that, like, at the last hour?
CARSTENS: Oh, I can give you an example with us. I mean, we were -- we had a plane in Tehran waiting to pick up the Americans. And one of the people that were helping us mediate came to me and said, look, the Iranians are actually adding an additional condition to this. Otherwise, the plane is not going to depart.
[20:45:01]
And I think I just leaned back. We knew that was going to happen. We expected it fully. And so we just leaned back and said, OK, that's fine. Let's get together in a few months and see if we can make this happen. And the fact that we were not concerned and called their bluff, they came back in about 30 or 45 minutes and said, OK, we're going to go ahead and continue on with the deal. But I think we were emotionally prepared for that because they seem to do that every single time. And it's not just in the waning hours. It's really just in the negotiations. And you had Brett McGurk on prior. I think he could probably speak chapter and verse of how many times you think you're getting close to a deal. And then you walk into a room and suddenly the deal's off or it's gone 3 degrees to the left or 4 degrees to the right.
COOPER: It's got to be so incredibly frustrating and, I mean, enraging. When you were negotiating the release of detained Americans in Iran, were those done through a mediator? Did you talk directly with the Iranians?
CARSTENS: That's funny. I think I always wanted to talk to the Iranians. I think we figured out early on that the IGRC actually held the key to the jail cell and that they're who we really had to talk to. But when it came right down to it, Rob Malley was moving forward to start talking about the JCPOA.
And I think we all made a decision that we're going to get our plan together. And that when Rob went forward to Vienna to talk to the Iranians, we would do it through through through Rob, but there were proxy negotiations. So even then, we weren't talking directly with the Iranians. We might be in the same hotel on a different floor working with mediators, even in close proximity to get a deal. But you wouldn't -- you weren't sitting across the table from the Iranians.
COOPER: And how likely is it that the Americans who are believed to be detained in Iran could be part of a deal in the next round of negotiations or in any potential negotiations, whether it's over the Strait of Hormuz most immediately or a later nuclear deal?
CARSTENS: Anderson, it could go both ways. I mean, to me, the bottom line is they absolutely, positively, 100 percent should be a part of any negotiation that we're making. But I think at that level, you would actually find that people that are tasked with these huge negotiations of great importance, they'll in a way almost forget this.
It's almost like the human element sometimes is just kind of in a way brushed over, forgotten. Well, I will say this about President Trump, though, and he has a history in Trump one and in his current administration of working hard to bring Americans back. So it's my hope that as we conduct these negotiations, that the hostages are front and center and that they're a priority to -- for the administration to bring these Americans home.
COOPER: And there's six in captivity, you believe?
CARSTENS: There's six that we know of. We know the names of two of them. The other four, for security reasons or privacy reasons, have asked to keep their identities, I would say, clandestine or hidden. But we know right now of six.
And who knows? I think right now I think I've been able to work with some people to compile a list of about almost 30 Americans, Europeans, South Americans, et cetera. But right now we know of six Americans that are being held.
COOPER: Wow. It's incredible work that you and others in your line of work do.
Roger Carstens, thanks so much for being on to talk about it. Appreciate it.
CARSTENS: Thanks, Anderson.
COOPER: During the war in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghans contributed to the United States' war effort, many of whom expected to eventually be relocated to the United States. We're talking about interpreters and others. But then came the U.S. chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
And now The New York Times is reporting that, quote, "Trump is said to be in talks to send Afghans who aided U.S. forces to Congo." Now, according to The Times, as many as 1,100 Afghans may now be sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
These Afghans were originally brought to Qatar in 2024 for what was supposed to be a temporary stop. They were told they were coming to the United States. The Trump administration ended that program, leaving many of them in limbo. They're not allowed by the administration to come now.
We should point out that the details of any potential resettlement are still taking shape. The President was actually asked about the reporting today. His response, quote, "I don't know. I'd have to check that."
I'm joined now by the president of the aid group, AfghanEvac, Shawn VanDiver. He spoke to The New York Times for their story.
Shawn, I was stunned when I heard this story, when I read it two days ago. What was your reaction when State Department officials briefed you about this plan? I mean, how serious is the administration about pursuing it?
SHAWN VANDIVER, PRESIDENT, AFGHANEVAC: Well, Anderson, thanks for having me on today. Look, the truth is, it wasn't a briefing. It was a frantic series of phone calls from several officials in and out of government saying, oh, my God, we're actually considering bringing these folks to the DRC.
And they were asking us for help. We've had a long and storied relationship with the State Department around this issue. And, look, our reaction was absolutely not. And these folks just simply cannot go from the worst refugee crisis in the world to the second worst refugee crisis in the world.
COOPER: I mean, I -- as a student of history who studied the Vietnam war a lot, I'm old enough to remember, you know, what was done to people who supported Vietnamese, who supported U.S. for years in Vietnam, who were left high and dry.
[20:50:15]
And when the U.S. pulled out people, you know, who had fought and their family members had died for, you know, for the United States, it's incredible -- you know, and a lot of people said never again after the Vietnam War would that happen to people who worked for the United States in combat zones. Why would anybody work for the U.S. in the next combat zone?
VANDIVER: That's exactly the question we're asking right now. And Anderson, look, most people don't know that after the chaotic withdrawal back in 2021, we approached the Biden administration, we built a partnership, and we built something called Enduring Welcome, the safest, most secure legal immigration pathway in history.
We had 5,000 Afghans a month leaving Kabul after being clearly vetted, both medically and through security. It wasn't fast enough, but it was happening. And it was happening much faster than it ever happened for any other population of wartime allies.
We were getting it right. And then on day one, President Trump shut it down. And every day since, they've been enacting these heinous policies. This is just the latest in a series of awful, awful choices that have been made by the Trump administration.
COOPER: Can you just explain for our viewers how directly these individuals were involved with helping the United States war effort.
VANDIVER: Sure. It's not like they were casual observers, right? Many of these folks were interpreters or translators. Some of them were lawyers and prosecutors who put the Taliban in jail. Some of them were Afghan women, Afghan military pilots and special operators who fought our war for us. Some even worked for the CIA and were handed weapons and said, go fight this war for us and we'll take care of you.
In many cases, these are folks that were side by side and sometimes on their own fighting our war. And, Anderson, at that camp right now, there are 150 family members, direct family members, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers of active duty U.S. military service members, some of whom are right now fighting the war in Iran, wondering if their mom or dad are going to be sent to the DRC.
COOPER: It's -- the idea that they have a choice of going to Congo or going back to Afghanistan. If they went back to Afghanistan, what might happen to these people?
VANDIVER: Well, it's likely that they'll be killed, Anderson. They'll be hunted down and killed. The women, special operators will be imprisoned, raped, tortured, murdered.
And, look, you hit on all of the reasons why we don't believe that this is an actual option, right? Either the Afghans will decline. Many I've heard from have said that they will decline. But also, we think that this is Stephen Miller's way of getting around international and U.S. law around refoulement, which essentially is that you can't send somebody back to a place that they're in danger. You can't send Afghans back to the Taliban. But if you send them to the DRC and then they choose to go back or if they voluntarily go back, then you can get around that law. But we're not fooled. We're not going to let the world be tricked by this.
I think Andrew Veprek at the State Department thinks we're all idiots, but we're not going to fall for it. And we're going to keep fighting this insane behavior. And if your viewers want to help us, they can go to afghanevac.org/donate and support our work to fight for this today.
COOPER: Well, Shawn VanDiver, I really appreciate your efforts. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
VANDIVER: Thanks so much, Anderson.
COOPER: Well, my online streaming show about loss and grief starts at 9:15 tonight in about 20 minutes. It's called All There Is Live. It's a companion show to my podcast. And tonight, my guest is a young widow whose husband drowned trying to save others. You'll hear from her after the break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN BILAWCHUK, LOST HER HUSBAND WHO FEEL THROUGH ICE TRYING TO SAVE CHILDREN: I have learned so much in the last two years how we can hold multiple truths at once. Joy and pain can coexist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:58:09]
COOPER: In just about, well, at 9:15 tonight, I'm going to be speaking on my streaming show online, All There Is Live. It's my new streaming show about grief and loss. It's a companion show to my podcast. You can watch it live at CNN.com/AllThereIs or use the QR code at the bottom of your screen.
I'm speaking tonight with a woman named Kristen Bilawchuk, who lives in Saskatchewan, Canada. In November 2023, her husband Chris, along with his 28-year-old nephew Joe, died while trying to rescue his two young nieces who'd fallen through the ice on a frozen lake. They saved one five-year-old girl, but Ava, Chris's seven-year-old niece, drowned.
I first learned about Kristen when she reached out to me and left me this voicemail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILAWCHUK: Hi, Anderson. My name is Kristen Bilawchuk. I'm sitting in a brand new home that I recently purchased. And my husband should be here with me, but he passed away almost two years ago when I was 35 and he was 38. He was trying to rescue my two little nieces who fell through the ice on a frozen lake in Saskatchewan, where we live. And our adult nephew tried to rescue the little girls with him. Unfortunately, they and the little girl succumbed to the cold, went into cold shock, and they drowned.
My husband, Chris, was my best friend, the love of my life, my soulmate. We had the most beautiful, beautiful relationship. I never experienced love like that in my life. Chris and I wanted to buy a house, so I bought a house on my own. But I am just so incredibly lonely and sad that he's not here with me to experience this milestone.
I never thought that I would become a 35-year-old widow. To survive my grief and my life without Chris, I have to talk about grief. I have to talk about him. I have learned so much in the last two years how we can hold multiple truths at once. Joy and pain can coexist.
I'm proud of how far I've come, but it doesn't erase the pain of him not being here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: You can join me and Kristen 15 minutes on All There Is Live, 9:15 p.m. Eastern at CNN.com/AllThereIs.
That's it for me. The news continues. The Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.
