transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Hi Diva, it's Rachel.

Speaker 2:
[00:01] And Jordan, yeah, hi.

Speaker 3:
[00:02] Quick question.

Speaker 1:
[00:03] Why are you not spending your Venmo balance?

Speaker 2:
[00:05] Yeah, we're concerned.

Speaker 1:
[00:06] You can like buy stuff with it.

Speaker 3:
[00:07] You love buying stuff.

Speaker 1:
[00:09] And earn cash back on eligible purchases.

Speaker 4:
[00:11] You love purchasing eligible things.

Speaker 1:
[00:14] So the money your friend sent you yesterday, that's today's ramen or ride share or eye patches.

Speaker 2:
[00:19] The skincare kind, not the pyro kind.

Speaker 1:
[00:21] Spend with Venmo and you can earn cash back with Venmo Stash.

Speaker 5:
[00:24] Venmo Stash bundle terms and exclusions apply. Max $100 cash back per month. See terms at venmo.me slash stash terms.

Speaker 1:
[00:28] See verification required to use a Venmo balance.

Speaker 6:
[00:35] 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, quote, for a little while. He said that late today in the Oval Office. He was also asked about using a nuclear weapon against Iran.

Speaker 7:
[00:56] Sir, would you use a nuclear weapon against Iran? You posted on Truth Social a few weeks ago.

Speaker 8:
[01:01] 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.

Speaker 6:
[01:19] The reporter asking seemed to be referencing the president's previous social media posts that a, quote, whole civilization will die tonight. CNN also has new reporting that the US military is developing new plans to target Iran's capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz in the event that the currency's 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 mine sweepers 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 Kristin Holmes at the White House. So how's the White House squaring the president's order to attack Iranian boats, with his assertion that ceasefire has been extended as diplomatic efforts continue?

Speaker 3:
[03:41] 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 US. 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 US 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 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, yeah, 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 re-election, they know that's going to hurt their campaigns come November.

Speaker 6:
[05:22] Chris Nomes 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 DeVries. Thanks very much for being with us. You're the president, talking about the shoot and kill, the small boats, any smaller boat laying mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Strategically, how capable are we in doing that?

Speaker 9:
[05:45] Strategically, what we ought to be doing is going after these small boats before they get under way. 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-linking capability. We ought to go after the ballistic missile. So try and shut down that Iranian capability to control the Strait.

Speaker 6:
[06:06] It was a small boat that hit the USS Cole with devastating results.

Speaker 9:
[06:10] 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 mine-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 the Strait is to ensure the mines do not dominate it.

Speaker 6:
[06:43] The president was talking about our mine sweepers are working. There was a reporting that the US had decommissioned the mine sweepers. I think there were six of them that were, four? There were four that were decommissioned just before this began. I think in January, they were in the region. Do you know why they were decommissioned? What was the rationale for that?

Speaker 9:
[07:06] Yeah, I do.

Speaker 6:
[07:06] And so when the president says our mine sweepers are working, do we have mine sweepers?

Speaker 9:
[07:10] We do. The four that were decommissioned were old, they were obsolete, and frankly, I bet Admiral Brad Cooper, the commander, wishes he had them right now. But they were moved on simply in an accident of timing. We do have new mine sweepers. 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 mine sweeping. 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 mine sweepers. NATO has excellent minesweepers.

Speaker 6:
[07:47] But they're not doing that at this point.

Speaker 9:
[07:49] They're not. And my view, they ought to make a pragmatic decision here to step up and be part of clearing this straight. I think ultimately they will.

Speaker 6:
[07:58] The president said that he had tripled up level. That was his phrase, the minesweeping. Do you know what that would mean?

Speaker 9:
[08:09] 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.

Speaker 6:
[08:32] 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?

Speaker 9:
[09:04] 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.

Speaker 6:
[09:44] Whatever happens here, will a US 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?

Speaker 9:
[09:59] 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 ship 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 US. Navy presence.

Speaker 6:
[10:31] I mean, the US has advocated for and fought for freedom of the seas for as long as it's history.

Speaker 9:
[10:39] Yeah.

Speaker 6:
[10:41] If, is a, you know, Ambassador Crocker will be on later, the last time he was on this program, he talked about the 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 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?

Speaker 9:
[11:08] Not in my world. And, you know, the Admiral is going to say this, but it is freedom of the navigation, freedom of the high seas. That's straight. The Strait of Hormuz connects to 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.

Speaker 6:
[11:37] Admiral, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

Speaker 9:
[11:39] Always a pleasure.

Speaker 6:
[11:40] Up next, as our global war cover 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 US blockade on its ports. Does that need to end for a new round of peace talks, however? Also later, a US special forces soldier who helped capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro arrested and charged for allegedly betting on the operation on a prediction market online, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars, $400,000 on polymarket details on that ahead.

Speaker 10:
[12:15] I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, legendary tech journalist and CNN contributor Kara Swisher, she has spent the last few months digging into the longevity space and testing out treatments to figure out what's real and what's snake oil.

Speaker 11:
[12:31] Everyone's like, what's the number one hack of longevity?

Speaker 12:
[12:34] I'm like, don't be poor, be rich, be rich, that will work.

Speaker 10:
[12:38] Listen to CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 8:
[12:47] I know 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's leading the country. They're in turmoil.

Speaker 6:
[13:02] With President Trump speaking today at the White House, the question now, where does this lead to negotiations? Joining us is senior 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 US 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?

Speaker 13:
[13:36] 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 Bahidi, the new Iranian National Security Advisor, Zuladar, the military advisor to the supreme leader, Mohsen Rezai, 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. Rezai 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.

Speaker 6:
[14:45] 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?

Speaker 13:
[15:07] That is correct. It was 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. All of the current leaders of Iran came of age in that conflict. Again, Mohsen Rezai, the military advisor to the new Supreme Leader, commanded the IRGC during that conflict, and he famously advised Khomeini in 1988 not to accept a ceasefire, to fight on. So you've got to know your adversary, and these adversaries have been through tougher battles than 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. And that is not going to be easy.

Speaker 6:
[16:01] It is, I think, so important to think about that. I mean, they engaged, I mean, trench warfare for 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.

Speaker 14:
[16:19] Yeah, Anderson, you can do the economic indicators. So Iran, before this war, according to the IMF, their economy was contracting by 6 percent, inflation was 60 percent, and they've taken a complete beating. And I think this blackhead 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 early in this conflict. And the first principles of warfare and Karl von Clauswitz and war is a test of wills. And wills are intangible. 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. There's not a new generation of leaders being being appointed from the Iran-Iraq war. And Khomeini, after eight years of that war, when he signed on to a UN-brokered ceasefire, he said, I have to drink from the poison 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's 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 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.

Speaker 6:
[18:08] So, Ambassador, if time, you know, if there's a different conception of the time and a different willingness to wait this out from between the US administration and the Iranian administration, does that give Iran an advantage here?

Speaker 13:
[18:30] 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 party to blowing up our embassy and 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 and whatever it takes to, at a minimum, reopen the strait. And that means being clear with our Gulf, Arab Gulf partners that we're 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.

Speaker 6:
[19:31] Yeah, I mean, to the ambassador's point, if that is what the US is wanting to do, which is, okay, this is actually a battle and it's going to be a long haul, reaching out to allies at this stage would seem to be a wise idea, no? I mean, to try to build what wasn't built before beginning this.

Speaker 14:
[19:55] 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, okay? 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 Stravidis mentioned the NATO militaries and the navies. They have tremendous mind-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 who are disappointed in, try to sign up some of the more capable to help us out in the strait and help us with the mind clearing to get that international passage open and apply diplomatic pressure on Iran multilateral, including with those Asian economies and frankly with China. President Trump is heading to China here in a few weeks and Xi Jinping can put pressure on Iran. I think you want to use all of that military pressure to help reinforce what we're doing through the blockade. Otherwise it's just the US versus Iran and this thing is just going to continue to drift.

Speaker 6:
[21:22] Brett McGurk, Ambassador Crocker, really good discussion. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Up next, a US. Special Forces soldier involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He's been arrested for allegedly betting on the operation in an online prediction market, making $400,000. 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 US fight against. We'll be right back with more on that.

Speaker 15:
[22:08] Your next chapter in health care starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January thirteenth from four to seven p.m. You'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors, and learn about our associate degree in nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at carrington.edu/events. For information on program outcomes, visit carrington.edu/sci.

Speaker 6:
[22:41] Welcome back. A US. Special Forces soldier who is involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás 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 Polly Market, 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.

Speaker 7:
[23:22] Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these prediction markets and potentially getting rich?

Speaker 8:
[23:29] Well, I don't know about it, but was he betting that they would get him or they wouldn't get him?

Speaker 7:
[23:34] It sounds like he was betting on his removal from office, that Maduro would be removed. It sounds like he was involved in the operation.

Speaker 8:
[23:41] That's like Peter Rose betting on his own team. I'll look into it.

Speaker 7:
[23:44] Yeah. There are also betting that are being placed as well on the Iran conflict too. And there have been some trackings where people suspect that there's insider trading happening on these prediction markets around the war.

Speaker 8:
[23:56] Well, you know, the whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino.

Speaker 6:
[24:03] The president later adding, quote, I don't like it conceptually, but it is what it is. Joined out 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 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.

Speaker 11:
[24:34] 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.

Speaker 6:
[25:21] Congressman, were you surprised? I mean, the someone, I mean, the 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.

Speaker 16:
[25:32] I don't want to say I'm surprised because, I mean, 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, 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 US senator visit Syria before June? Well, if you're a US 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 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.

Speaker 6:
[26:59] Well, I mean, the prediction markets are predicated on this notion that there is some insider knowledge, 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. 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 are the future problems this may raise. I'm not even sure we kind of really fully understand them yet.

Speaker 11:
[27:45] Yeah, I would 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 an addition to the concerns that 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 thirty thousand dollars 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.

Speaker 6:
[28:50] Congressman, do you think all government officials, elected military civilian should be banned by law or an executive order or bill passed by Congress from taking part in prediction markets? Is that a solution or would family members then just be tipped off?

Speaker 16:
[29:10] I mean, you could, but I think you ban it all. I mean, look, there's rules around Congress trading stocks. We have to show it in everything. There's a lot of discussion about banning Congress from trading stocks. This is more dangerous. If you're in Congress, 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. 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 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. It's not just rich people with a bunch of money playing poker. There are losers and it could be your 401k.

Speaker 6:
[30:15] Adam Kinsinger, 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 bonds negotiators are tougher than Russia's and China's. Also ahead, according to the New York Times, Afghans who helped US 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. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions with people who have faced and are living with life altering losses. A couple of years ago, I began noticing some articles written by a mom named Sarah Wildman. She's a staff writer and editor at the New York Times. Sarah's articles were beautiful and moving. Her daughter Orly was 10 when she found out she had the hepatoblastoma, and what she and Sarah and her husband Ian and their other daughter Hanna went through is extraordinary.

Speaker 4:
[31:24] It was very hard to know where to sit as caregiver. I sort of wanted somebody to give me a guide as to how to even have this conversation without it all falling apart.

Speaker 6:
[31:34] Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 17:
[31:44] See a nation's enduring love for baseball when Shohei Otani and Japan's biggest major league stars return home to play in front of their fans for the first time. Homecoming, the Tokyo series, now streaming on the CNN app.

Speaker 6:
[32:03] 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 Brittany Greiner, 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 US citizens detained there, including two of the people you see here, Cameron Hekmaty and Reza Vazada, hoping their freedom could be part of a larger peace deal. Roger Carson joins me now. Roger, thanks for being with us. You mentioned that the Iranians are tougher negotiators than the Russians, Chinese, even the Taliban in your experience. Can you explain that?

Speaker 18:
[32:53] Well, 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've made, the Iranians would start moving the goalposts even at that point. And we actually-

Speaker 6:
[33:24] In what way would they move the goalposts at that, like at the last hour?

Speaker 18:
[33:28] Oh, I can give you an example with us. I mean, 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. 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, okay, 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, okay, we're going to go ahead and continue on with the deal. But I think we were emotionally prepared for that because they seemed 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 three degrees to the left or four degrees to the right.

Speaker 6:
[34:24] It's going to be so incredibly frustrating and enraging. When you were negotiating the release of detained Americans in Iran, were those done through a mediator? Did you talk correctly with the Iranians?

Speaker 18:
[34:36] Yeah, it'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 do our plan together and that when Rob went forward to Vienna to talk to the Iranians, we would do it 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 weren't sitting across the table from the Iranians.

Speaker 6:
[35:16] 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?

Speaker 18:
[35:33] 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 1 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 for the administration to bring these Americans home.

Speaker 6:
[36:11] And there's six in captivity, you believe?

Speaker 18:
[36:15] 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've been able to work with some people to compile a list of about almost 30 Americans, Europeans, South Americans, etc. But right now we know of six Americans that are being held.

Speaker 6:
[36:40] It's incredible work that you and others in your line of work do. Roger Carson, thanks so much for being on Talk About It. Appreciate it.

Speaker 18:
[36:48] Thanks Anderson.

Speaker 6:
[36:49] 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 US 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 US forces to Congo. Now, according to The Times, as many as 1100 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. Joined now by the president of the aid group Afghan EVAC, Sean Van Diver. He spoke to the New York Times for their story. Sean, 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?

Speaker 19:
[38:06] Well, Anderson, thanks for having me on today. Look, the truth is it wasn't a briefing. There 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.

Speaker 6:
[38:39] 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 US for years in Vietnam, who were left high and dry. And when the US pulled out, people, you know, who had fought and their family members had died for, you know, 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 US in the next combat zone?

Speaker 19:
[39:25] 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 5000 Afghans a month leaving Kabul after being clearly vetted both medically and through security. It wasn't fast enough, but it was happening. 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.

Speaker 6:
[40:13] Can you just explain for our viewers how directly these individuals were involved with helping the United States war effort?

Speaker 19:
[40:23] 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 military, 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 US 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.

Speaker 6:
[41:07] 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?

Speaker 19:
[41:18] Well, it's likely that they'll be killed, Anderson. They'll be hunted down and killed. 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 US 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 Veprik 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 afghanevec.org/donate and support our work to fight for this today.

Speaker 6:
[42:14] Well, Sean van Diver, I really appreciate your efforts. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Speaker 19:
[42:18] Thanks so much, Anderson.

Speaker 6:
[42:24] In just about, well, at nine fifteen tonight, I'm going to be speaking on my 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/all there is or use the QR code at the bottom of your screen. I'm speaking tonight with a woman named Kristen Billachuk, who lives in Saskatchewan, Canada. In November 2023, her husband, Chris, along with his twenty eight 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.

Speaker 12:
[43:10] Hi, Anderson, my name is Kristen Billachuk. 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 thirty five 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 of 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.

Speaker 6:
[44:39] You can join me and Christian in 15 minutes on All There Is Live, 9:15 p.m. Eastern at cnn.com/all there is. That's it for me. The news continues. The source of Caitlin Collins starts now.

Speaker 2:
[44:50] Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistance assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com/switch.

Speaker 5:
[45:10] Upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra, default terms at mintmobile.com.

Speaker 20:
[45:21] Influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry.

Speaker 1:
[45:25] There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned.

Speaker 20:
[45:29] The new CNN original series Kara Swisher wants to live forever. Now streaming on the CNN app.