Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Rips Allies Who Rejected His Call for Help in Strait of Hormuz; Afghan Man Who Served Alongside U.S. Forces Dies After Less than a Day in ICE Custody; Closing Arguments Begin in Kouri Richins Murder Trial; Cuba's Power System Suffers Total Collapse. Aired 2:30- 3p ET

Aired March 16, 2026 - 14:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: President Trump says numerous U.S. allies are on the way to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, but he won't say which ones. France says it's willing to escort vessels through the Strait of Hormuz when the most intense phase of the war ends. While Germany's defense minister said the following, "What does Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do? This is not our war. We have not started it."

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOSE: A lot of dynamics to talk about here. We're here with us now, Kirsten Fontenrose, she was the senior director for the Gulf at the National Security Council in Trump's first term. She's also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Also with us, Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst for the Washington Post-Intelligence. Good to see you both. Kirsten, I want to start with you because, you know, one of the dynamics that we're watching right now is obviously the president wants people to help, whether it's NATO or Eastern Asian countries, but is it just too risky?

I mean, what is the threshold there? Can they keep putting it off and leaving it to the United States?

KIRSTEN FONTENROSE, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR THE GULF, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: They can't keep putting it off and leaving it to the United States because their economies have more at stake than ours does. And at a certain point, these world leaders are going to have to ask themselves, you know, can I expect the U.S. to put my economic interests ahead of America's national security interests? So this really shouldn't be a surprising request.

This administration and Trump's whole first administration focused on burden sharing. They were constantly asking NATO to up its commitments to GDP. This is just another burden sharing request.

They're saying if we are going to be responsible for keeping this trade flowing, 84 percent of the oil that passes through Hormuz goes to Asia and the majority of Europe's LNG comes from the Straits Passage also, whereas in 2024, only 2 percent of the U.S. petroleum products that the U.S. consumed came through that pass. So this is not America's sole responsibility, is what you're going to hear more and more from the U.S. administration as they try to convince other countries to get involved in this.

JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: I don't think the European countries are going to come and bail Trump out of this mess. I think you have to think about the context here. Trump just spent a year hurting their economies on purpose, threatening to attack NATO, threatening to pull out of NATO.

And then they started this -- the Trump administration started this war without even bothering to consult them. Didn't take their interests into account until he needed them. And their populations are at historic levels of anti-Americanism because of how we've treated them over the last year.

And they're democracies, so I don't think their leaders are going to be able to overcome that. And why would they? It's much easier, and you'll see a bunch of countries doing this, to negotiate with the Iranians.

The Iranians are setting up a system whereby they let the ships pass that they want to let pass. Just in the last 24 hours, they let several ships pass for countries that they're not at war with. So if you were any country in the world, depending on this strait, it's much easier to make a deal with the Iranians than to send your ships down the strait to protect, make them sitting ducks for the Iranian drones and missiles, which seems crazy reckless.

The Japanese are the one exception. Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi is coming to town on Wednesday. She's got to have one of those sit- downs with Trump in the Oval Office.

If she wants to get out of that thing without getting yelled at like Zelenskyy, she's probably going to have to do something. She's probably going to have to send like a minesweeper or something like in three weeks or something like that. But she doesn't want to help any more than anybody else wants to help because Trump made his bed and they don't expect themselves to line it.

KEILAR: But there is often this sort of one-sided element to the relationship, right? Trump expects things that he may not be willing to give, right? And the NATO countries, they're aware of that.

I guess what I wonder, Kirsten, is he says he wants them to step up. He also says he doesn't need them. I don't know.

Maybe he doesn't want to need them, right? And then he mentioned at least three times, at least three times asking allies for minesweepers. One of the questions this raises for a lot of people who are looking at this is, what does this tell you about how prepared or not prepared he was for being at this point in the war?

[14:35:00]

FONTENROSE: The minesweepers are something that we've been looking -- we need to up production of our own anyway. So that request is saying, this is really your economic interest at play here in these cargoes coming through. Some of the cargoes aren't even worth what the escort convoy would cost to run. In some cases, it's not only oil that's on these ships.

And the minesweepers are a way of saying, you're not involved in something offensively. If you send us a minesweeper, it's purely defensive, and it's just clearing the ground. The Iranians have been laying mines in that strait for almost the entire term of this regime.

A friend in the Navy, EOD, told me once that it would take us a decade or more of 24-7 effort to get all of these mines up that have already been laid, and that some of them have moved away from the spots where they were originally laid. So if they're detonated, who knows where some of them will go off. Who knows where proportion are even still active.

But they're a risk, and they're almost more risky that way, because they can be unpredictable.

JIMENEZ: Well, and it's created this dynamic where, I mean, I can't remember the last time the United States has been asking for China's help in a situation like this. And we know there's a scheduled meeting between the United States and China that appears to be, as we understand, could be delayed, though the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, saying not tied to strait or Hormuz. I don't know how those two might not be related, but hey, I don't have all the information.

Josh, I wonder, how do you see the U.S.-Chinese relationship in this? And do you anticipate any help, even if it's protecting some of those business interests?

ROGIN: Sure. To be clear, China is helping Iran. China is Iran's ally. We attack China's ally, Iran.

And the Chinese tankers are going to get through, because they're going to make a deal with the Iranians. So they have no incentive whatsoever to help us against Iran when they're helping Iran against us. So it doesn't make sense on its face.

Now, as for the larger U.S.-China relationship, I think it looks increasingly likely that Trump is going to delay his planned trip to Beijing next month, which they had been planning for, for a very long time, as a big sort of deal in the U.S.-China relationship. But it just goes to show you that the Iran war is distracting the United States from its other missions around the world, including the mission to, you know, set the relationship with China on a safe and steady course and to focus on deterrence in the East. And what we've done is we've pulled all of our defensive missile defense from Korea and increasingly from other parts of Asia, moved them to the Middle East.

We're moving Marines from Asia to the Middle East. And the signal that China must get is that America is distracted. And that's a gift to Xi Jinping.

So I predict that the summit will not happen. And I predict that Xi Jinping will use this time to do what he's been doing, which is to consolidate his power in the region and take advantage of America's distraction.

JIMENEZ: And it puts even more pressure on. Let's see what happens with this prime minister meeting with Takaichi and Japan here in the U.S.

Kirsten Fotheringhose, Josh Rogin, I've got to leave it there. Appreciate you both for being here.

All right, still to come, an Afghan father of six who served alongside U.S. special forces died less than a day after ICE detained him. Now his family is demanding answers.

We'll have the details coming up.

[14:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: An Afghan man who served alongside U.S. Special Forces, who fled his country after the Taliban takeover, died shortly after being detained in Texas, according to his family and an advocacy group. Mohammad Nazeer Paktiawal died on Saturday, less than a day after he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement outside of his Dallas area apartment. His family says the 41-year-old father of six had no known health conditions and had been seeking asylum since his arrival to the U.S. in August of 2021.

DHS said in a statement that Paktiawal was arrested during a targeted enforcement operation and did not report any prior medical history. DHS went on to say he complained of shortness of breath and chest pains during his medical intake exam at a Dallas ICE field office after his arrest. ICE contacted paramedics who transported him to a Dallas hospital, but his condition deteriorated on Saturday morning, and he died shortly after 9 a.m. local time after he received CPR from physicians. He is the 12th detainee to die in ICE custody this year.

I'm joined now by Andrew Sullivan. He's the executive director of No One Left Behind, which is a veterans nonprofit that helps resettle Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government. He also served as an Army infantry commander in Afghanistan. Can you -- first off, thank you so much for being with us. Can you speak to what your reaction is just to what we're learning about this case?

ANDREW SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NO ONE LEFT BEHIND: Yes, Brianna, firstly, thank you for having me on. Secondly, our hearts are with the family. Nazeer's family is obviously going through a lot.

He was the father of six children. And so right now, you know, my immediate reaction is thinking of them and praying for them. Beyond that, we clearly need a full, transparent and independent investigation to understand how this happened.

His family deserves those answers. And I think Americans and veterans like myself want those answers as well.

KEILAR: So can you talk a little bit about the type of work, kind of broadly, that Afghans like Mohammad Nazeer Paktiawal did alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan that qualified them to receive entry into the U.S. and why that was deemed important enough for that entry?

SULLIVAN: Absolutely. So as we understand it, Nazeer was under the asylum process, was seeking asylum. And that was because he had, you know, very real fear of repercussion from his service alongside Americans.

As we understand it, he was a special operator with the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command.

[14:45:00]

He also worked for the National Directorate of Security. That's like a hybrid between the FBI and CIA that the previous Afghan government had. In both of those roles, his work would have been invaluable to taking terrorists off the battlefield that were targeting American forces.

That work was alongside Americans day in and day out. You know, truly cannot overemphasize the importance of that work. And so although he didn't apply, as we understand it, for a special immigrant visa, his work was invaluable to the U.S. mission and kept Americans like myself alive.

KEILAR: I think when you look at his case, there are kind of questions that get raised. For instance, DHS said in a statement that upon entering the U.S., he provided no record of his military service. But then Afghan evac, the advocacy group, provided a certificate of service.

You just went through some of his service there, which is significant and dangerous. And then his family is saying that he had been seeking asylum since he got to the U.S. in 2021. And DHS said his humanitarian parole expired last August.

What kind of struggles are you seeing for folks like this? And in this case where, you know, they're coming with the promise of, you know, escaping this risk, and then seeing doors shut and there being confusion even about what their qualifications for that asylum may be?

SULLIVAN: It's a great question. So firstly, regardless of whether his parole expired or not, if he was pending an asylum case, he's eligible to stay here. But I think it speaks to the larger issue facing our Afghan allies.

He arrived in August of 2021, and here we are, you know, nearly four and a half years later, approaching five years, and his case had not been adjudicated. Now, we have long called for bipartisan, common- sense solutions, including, you know, involving especially Congress to help this issue along so that, you know, the tens of thousands of allies that we, the United States, evacuated here in 2021 have some permanence and aren't just waiting for, you know, half a decade. So unfortunately, Congress has not passed the Afghan Adjustment Act.

They haven't taken action on smart bipartisan legislation. And so this is, unfortunately, all too indicative of what we're seeing for many of our Afghan allies, which is just years of waiting without an answer.

KEILAR: It's really interesting to talk to veterans of the war in Afghanistan, because when you talk to them sort of about how they see their commitment, it doesn't cut along political lines, right? They served side by side with a lot of Afghan forces. They feel an allegiance to them.

They feel that those forces kept them safe. They want to be able, obviously, to provide the same kind of promise. And I wonder how you're thinking about that promise and the promise that America has to its allies, its wartime allies, that, you know, they're going to stand by them for whatever help they do provide during wartime.

SULLIVAN: It's incredibly important to us. You know, I don't want to speak on behalf of all veterans, but I feel quite confident that, you know, for the vast majority of veterans, we saw the Afghan allies that served with us, whether they were interpreters that were working, you know, directly in our platoons or, you know, within our individual units, or whether they're the Afghan National Army that worked very closely in very, you know, complex situations, and oftentimes in really sensitive situations as well, working alongside special operators. You know, we see them as our brothers and sisters in arms, so we have an obligation to them. That obligation didn't end in August of 2021, you know, for us.

Until they're safe, until they're not facing reprisal, the mission is not done. I don't think that's unique to me. I think that's a view that most veterans, the vast majority of veterans across the political spectrum feel.

KEILAR: Yes, many of them working for years on end in those conditions that you spell out. Andrew Sullivan, it's great to speak with you. Thanks for being with us.

SULLIVAN: Thank you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Omar.

JIMENEZ: Well, happening now, closing arguments are underway in the murder trial of Utah mother Kouri Richins. Prosecutors say she poisoned her husband, Eric, with a lethal dose of fentanyl in 2022 for financial gain, and then after his death, Richins wrote a children's book about coping with grief. I want to bring in CNN's Jean Casarez, who joins us now.

So Jean, let's just start with what will the jury be weighing here during their discussions.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think the credibility of Kouri Richins is at stake right here, because the prosecution in their first close, they're going to have a rebuttal close, too, but they really focused in on all the inconsistencies or the lies, you can say, that she said to so many people of what the story was. Also, they played the 911 call where the operator keeps saying, perform CPR, perform CPR. And she keeps sort of blowing it off and they have the clock ticking, showing that she didn't take action at that point.

But it was also really the big picture, the means, the motive, the opportunity. \

[14:50:00]

The means, she had fentanyl in her hand. The motive, she had a financial motive. She wanted to be rich and she needed money.

She also wanted to lead a new life with the boyfriend. And then also the fact opportunity she lived in the home with her husband.

Let's listen to some of that closing argument.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRAD BLOODWORTH, SUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTOR: She gambled other people's money and lost. Her business was imploding. All the while, Kouri Richins was more interested in spending time with Josh Grossman than Eric.

She dreamed of living in the Midway Mansion with Josh, running it as an event center, farming and raising kids, Eric's kids. But she did not have the money to leave Eric or the money to salvage her business.

Kouri Richins is an intensely ambitious person. She is a risk taker. There was a way forward. Eric had to die.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: Kouri Richins was also making faces during the closing argument by the prosecution, rolling her eyes, sort of disgusted. And the prosecutor commented on it.

He commented to the jury her expressions throughout the whole trial. That produced, when the jury left for lunch, motion for mistrial from the defense. Judge said no.

They had some other issues, too. But now the facial expressions of the defendant, I think, are going to be front and center as the afternoon should be beginning shortly.

JIMENEZ: Yes, a lot to watch as we get ever closer to deliberations. Jean Casarez appreciate the reporting as always.

All right meanwhile, still to come, historic night at the Oscars. We're going to take a look at the most exciting moments from Hollywood's biggest night. Stick around.

[14:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KEILAR: We have some breaking news. Cuba's power operator says the country's electrical grid has suffered total collapse. This is the first nationwide blackout since the U.S. effectively shut off the flow of oil to Cuba, creating crippling shortages of fuel on the island. CNN's Havana bureau chief Patrick Oppmann is using a generator to speak with us. And Patrick, just explain to us for the moment -- explain for us about the moment that the power shut off there and how people are reacting.

PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: You know, it's very concerning because this has happened all too many times. But what is different, as you mentioned, Brianna, is it's the first time since the U.S. has placed an oil block on this island. So, of course, previously, you had a very aging energy infrastructure here.

It was collapsing all the time. But there was always enough fuel and eventually know how and time to get it back up, at least for a little while. I think this time could be different.

There's not been any coming into this island in three months. Cuba's president said to last week. And so the question is, does this island have the fuel to get the power back up?

Why this is important is because we've seen several days, nightly protests taking place, people at one point, one small town trying to burn down the Communist Party headquarters in that town. It is something you simply do not see here because, of course, the government cracks down on protests very, very hard here. And so when you have an entire island without power right now, no oil coming in, it's just a matter of time before officials here are going to be unable to get the power back on.

KEILAR: OK, so you're on a generator. How many people have generators? How do they manage this with fuel when there's just really no fuel?

OPPMANN: Well, you've hit the nail on the head there because you can have a generator, but if you don't have fuel stored up, then the generator is really not much use, of course. And that has been the issue is that your car -- the gasoline I put in my car to get to work, the gasoline we put in our generators, there's a limit on that. You're not finding gasoline for love or money.

I filled up my car the other day and it cost $300. That is the black market on fuel right now in Cuba. Far more expensive than even what you're paying in the U.S. There's no fuel coming in. The U.S. has very effectively blocked the fuel, Venezuela, Mexico, other countries that would give the fuel because Cuba cannot afford the fuel at this point. So this is a country that has been running on fumes now for weeks and apparently fuel has run out. So is the government going to be able to get the power back on?

Usually it takes a couple of days under the best of circumstances. These are the worst of circumstances. The government says they are trying to get the power back on. It remains an open question whether or not this will be the time. They simply are unable to. It does paint a troubling picture moving forward.

KEILAR: You said $300. I am curious how much you paid before the energy crisis but also tell us how vulnerable this makes the government.

OPPMANN: The government is hanging on. Certainly the economy is hanging on by a string because I don't think anyone who knows Cuba expects that people will rise up and force the government ...

END