Ceasefire Watch: Strait Back to Where We Started

[0:00] It's Thursday, April 23. You can declare a ceasefire all you want, but what if the other [0:05] side wants to continue the war? We start here. [0:10] Iran seizes more ships in the Strait of Hormuz, daring the U.S. to stop them. [0:15] I think the Iranians feel very confident that they know they've got the U.S. over a barrel. [0:20] President Trump seems determined not to reignite this. We'll examine his options. [0:25] This is throwing American summer plans up in the air. [0:27] We're talking about thousands of canceled flights so they can conserve fuel. [0:31] The oil shortage has become a jet fuel shortage. Now travelers are paying the price. [0:36] And the debate over mapmaking comes full circle. [0:39] They ran a dishonest gambit to try to rig the system. [0:44] Republicans are more nervous than ever about the midterms, but will these gerrymanders hold [0:48] up in court? [0:49] ABC News. This is Start Here. I'm Brad Milkey. [0:54] Remember earlier this week, we played you some voice memos from a seafarer on an oil tanker [1:06] in the Strait of Hormuz. Since this person is not authorized to speak publicly, we are [1:10] altering their voice. But if this person was frustrated before, the last few days have kicked [1:15] it up a notch. [1:16] We are still one of the lucky ones, if we can call ourselves that. [1:24] We spent the weekend of the Strait opening and closing exactly in the same location. [1:32] It has now been a full month since President Trump gave Iran a deadline to open the Strait [1:37] of Hormuz. 48 hours, he said. 48 hours or you will be obliterated. [1:43] Well, those two days turned into several days. Several days turned into a two-week ceasefire [1:48] deal. Those two weeks came and went. The U.S. is now blockading ships going in or out of [1:53] Iran, while Iran once again fires on commercial vessels. This week, President Trump has said [1:59] he's optimistic enough to extend this ceasefire. For how long? Well, speaking to Fox, he wouldn't [2:05] say. He said then that there is no time pressure on this ceasefire extension. [2:11] And to mariners like this one, that is the nightmare. Being told by one government, hey, [2:15] you're good to go, we think, while another government's military might be taking aim at you. [2:20] If there is no insurance covering us, us loaded tankers, to cross the Strait, we will never cross [2:29] the Strait. This is very straightforward. Well, over the last 24 hours, Iran has started getting [2:34] even more aggressive. Let's take you to the Middle East this morning. ABC's chief foreign [2:38] correspondent, Ian Pannell, joins us from Tel Aviv. Ian, it was like hours after President [2:43] Trump extended the ceasefire. We learned Iran has struck several ships. What is going on out there? [2:48] Yeah, I mean, it's worth remembering that the Iranians have fairly consistently accused [2:52] the U.S. of violating the ceasefire. And in fact, an Iranian parliamentary MP made this [2:58] point publicly that we will pursue a policy of an eye for an eye, a tanker for a tanker. [3:04] And that's exactly what happened yesterday. We saw the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard [3:09] Corps Navy. Remember, this is a navy that President Trump has said has been obliterated on multiple [3:15] occasions, conduct attacks using these fast boats in the Strait of Hormuz against three [3:21] vessels, two of which were then taken back to Iranian ports. And there were ports of gunfire, [3:27] the bridge being shot at, and obviously a very terrifying position for those those civilian [3:33] vessels who are transporting oil and other goods through the critical Strait of Hormuz. [3:38] Right now we have a blockade. They're doing no business. [3:41] Now, the president has said repeatedly, we control the Strait of Hormuz. Well, the reality [3:46] is, if you look at the map, you've got the Persian Gulf or the Northern Arabian Gulf, and [3:52] it has countries like Kuwait, Iran, Iraq around it. Think of it like an old-fashioned light bulb [3:57] at the top. [3:57] It's like the dead end, the cul-de-sac there. [4:00] Yeah, exactly. And then as it comes out, it snakes out through this narrow passageway that [4:06] goes circling towards the Iranian coastline. And it's very narrow. And that's the Strait of Hormuz. [4:12] And that is still effectively partly controlled by Iran. That was where the attacks took place [4:19] yesterday. And Iran is clearly not just exerting its authority, it's showing its willingness to [4:25] act in the area. It's a challenge to the United States. And they are insisting that this blockade [4:32] has to be lifted by the U.S. Navy, which is then further south in the Gulf of Oman. As that narrow [4:38] passageway opens up again, that's where the U.S. Navy is. [4:41] Do not attempt to breach the blockade. Vessels may be boarded for interdiction and seizure. [4:48] So they can put a blockade in that place, which basically says, okay, any ships leaving Iranian [4:53] coastline or any ships trying to get into the Iranian coastline, we're going to stop. But all other [4:57] vessels can pass there. But they've still got to get through the Strait of Hormuz. And Iran has shown [5:03] its capability and its willingness to act there. Right. To even say we control the Strait of Hormuz, [5:08] like obviously, obviously that's not the case if Iran is able to continue to just launch attacks [5:13] on ships there. But Ian, so if Iran is saying, U.S., you already broke the ceasefire, the blockade is an [5:20] act of war. And now Iran is firing on ships there. Is there a ceasefire to speak of at this point? And [5:27] if not, what happens now? Yeah. I mean, I have yet to meet a military [5:30] ceasefire that was ever complete in the true sense of the word. I mean, broadly speaking, [5:35] it is right because you don't have Israeli and American warplanes bombing the ground in Iran, [5:42] and you don't have a hot, open conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. [5:49] Aggression towards maritime shipping and trading is a dangerous violation, because if this becomes common, [5:54] basically maritime freedom will be in danger. They're playing hardball. They're saying, [5:58] look, as long as you've got that blockade in place, it is a violation of the ceasefire. And [6:02] therefore, we haven't got anything to talk about. They're saying the opening of the Strait of Hormuz [6:07] will be impossible with such a flagrant breach of the ceasefire. Now, we saw President Trump on [6:13] Tuesday night saying, look, Iran's losing $500 million a day through lost revenue because it can't get [6:18] its ships into or out of its ports. Well, the damage to the world economy is considerably greater [6:24] than that. And everybody is feeling the pinch. So it looks like an impasse. And despite the President [6:30] telling the New York Post that he thinks, well, look, maybe there could be talks on Friday, [6:34] at the moment, it just doesn't look like it when you listen to the Iranians. I think the Iranians feel [6:38] very confident that they know they've got the US over a barrel. And the trouble is, President Trump [6:43] thinks that he won the war and therefore that Iran should accede to all his requests. [6:48] Well, that's the thing, Ian, that confuses me because it almost seems as if the US and President [6:54] Trump and the White House are like, we're ready to be done here. We would like to be done here. In [6:57] fact, like we're not planning on launching aggressions anymore. It's not in our interest [7:00] at this point. So can everyone be done now? And Iran is like, no, or at least we're not conceding [7:06] anything that you wanted us to concede. So we'll just keep going like this. How long can that go on for, [7:11] Ian? Because President Trump keeps claiming victories, but the IRGC keeps firing back. [7:16] Yeah. I mean, in some senses, it's a game of economic chicken, right? Who is going to endure [7:21] the most pain? The claim that has been made by President Trump and the Defense Secretary, [7:27] Hegseth and others, that Iran's missile program has been obliterated and that it has no capabilities. [7:33] Well, I've talked about the fact that it does still have some kind of naval capabilities. The Defense [7:38] intelligence agency now saying that Iran has thousands of missiles and drones and still has [7:45] the capacity to launch. What it does show is that, yes, Iran retains some capability at sea, [7:52] a capability to put a stranglehold on the Strait of Four Moves and by extension, the world economy. [7:57] And it shows that Iran also has the capability of going back to open warfare, firing missiles and [8:03] drones at US facilities and allies throughout this region. [8:07] Right. If you've got the weapons and you're willing to fire them, you are still at war and [8:12] we'll see what happens next year. Ian Pannell, they're in Israel right now. Thank you so much. [8:16] Thanks, Brad. [8:19] Now, Ian mentioned some of the economic concerns. And remember, it's been about a month since President [8:23] Trump gave Iran this warning to open up the Strait. And remember, one of the reasons he gave that [8:28] ultimatum at the time was economists were telling him, this can get really bad. Maybe not today, [8:33] maybe not next week. But the longer ships are stuck in the Strait, the more prices here are [8:38] going to skyrocket. Some of the most concerned executives were from airlines. Jet fuel is made [8:44] with crude oil and it's not cheap, which is why there are lots of questions swirling right now [8:49] about what a lengthened shutdown of that Strait means for air travel. ABC's lead transportation [8:54] producer Sam Sweeney is with us. And Sam, I am asking because there's so many Americans like making [8:58] their summer plans and things. What is happening with air fuel and how is that translating to air [9:04] carrier costs right now? Fuel prices have pretty much doubled since the beginning of the Iran war [9:09] and ticket prices have sort of followed that. You know, United said in the early days that their [9:13] tickets have gone up 15 to 20 percent on some routes. CEO Scott Kirby said on Wednesday that flights [9:20] could go up an additional 15 to 20 percent this summer if prices and fuel continue to rise. They are [9:27] passing that cost on to the customer. But what the major issue is right now that is really becoming [9:33] a problem is the jet fuel shortage in Europe and Asia. And that's going to affect a lot of people. [9:39] We're talking about thousands of canceled flights so they can conserve fuel. Just Lufthansa, [9:44] Germans airline alone, they've already planned to cancel 20,000 short-haul flights across Europe [9:51] this summer so they can save fuel. So the big impacts are going to be on the smaller airports [9:56] and those flights where if they do cancel them, those people for the most part can jump on a train [10:02] and get to their destination. They're going to try to save what fuel they have for those long-haul [10:06] flights. So talking about flights out of Heathrow to the U.S. or to other parts of the world or, [10:11] you know, Paris, Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and so on. It's also possible that U.S. airlines could [10:18] bring in more fuel on the inbound flight. So if it's going from New York to Paris and they typically [10:24] need a certain amount of fuel, they'll bring a little bit more than that or maybe even double [10:28] that so they can get back to New York without doing a fuel stop. Oh, just to like avoid paying [10:35] at the European pump at the airport or something? It's not so much paying at the pump. It's that there [10:40] isn't the supply that's there. If they're not getting their oil from the Middle East coming through the [10:45] Strait of Hormuz, there simply isn't fuel. So they're going to try to bring in as much as they can. [10:51] But keep in mind, bringing extra fuel is very expensive. All of that extra weight costs money. [10:57] So they don't want to do that. And look, they may say, hey, we have enough fuel for the long-haul [11:02] flights. Don't worry about it. You don't have to bring in. Or in the worst case scenario, they could [11:07] say, hey, look, you have to make a fuel stop. If you're going from Paris to San Francisco, you may [11:12] have to stop in Canada or in the U.S. on the East Coast to get fuel to get all the way over to San [11:17] Francisco. Again, all of this is these are all possibilities. Nothing is set yet. We have to [11:24] see how this all plays out. Well, and Sam, selfishly, I just booked a ticket to Scotland [11:29] for a summer vacation. And I was like, this will be fun. Did I totally mess that up? Like, [11:32] is there a way to time this for when the conflict hopefully ends sometime? Look, [11:38] it's hard to predict the future right now, but we are expecting to see elevated prices for many, [11:44] many months. And even if oil does begin to drop in the next couple of weeks or couple of months, [11:50] don't expect airfare to drop right along with it. Airlines have been eating a lot of the cost on this [11:56] elevated fuel because most people bought their tickets for right now before the war started, [12:02] so at a lower price. So the airlines are losing a lot. They need to recoup those costs. So they're [12:06] going to try to keep tickets elevated for as long as they have to to recoup those losses. So we're [12:13] expecting to see higher fares over the next couple of months, possibly until the end of the year, [12:18] depending on what happens. But what you can do is if you have a ticket booked right now, [12:22] keep checking it, keep going on the airlines app or their website and see how much it costs. [12:27] If the fare drops in most cases on most US airlines, other than basic economy tickets, [12:33] you can call the airline and get the price difference credited back to your account. [12:38] Right. And just kind of a microcosm of all these economic things we're hearing about of how [12:42] you got these big developed countries being like, OK, there's a shortage. We will pay whatever it [12:46] takes to get these items, whether it's jet fuel or fertilizer or whatever. Countries lower down the [12:51] economic totem pole then are like, well, now there's nothing that we can afford. And you've [12:55] just seen the strickle effect all over the world. All right. Sam Sweeney, thank you. [12:58] Thank you. Next up on start here, Democrats won the redistricting war in Virginia, but [13:04] do mapmakers need to examine their moral compass? We're back in a bit. [13:08] On Tuesday, voters in Virginia headed to the polls for a referendum about gerrymandering. [13:18] Now, that used to be a dirty word in politics. A party might intentionally draw congressional [13:23] districts to favor their own candidates, which in some cases is perfectly legal. But you would [13:27] never admit to that. Well, this year, several states have passed openly gerrymandered maps. [13:33] And if Republicans started this, some political observer said this was Democrats finishing it. [13:38] Virginia voters never really passed this measure that will likely give this purple state 10 [13:43] Democratic seats and only one certain Republican seat. But this might not be the end of the story, [13:48] politically or legally. Let's bring in Sarah Isger. She's a former GOP campaign strategist, [13:53] an ABC News Supreme Court contributor. She's also the author of the brand new book, [13:57] Last Branch Standing, about the High Court. I read it. It's great. Sarah, first off, [14:02] this whole mid-decade redistricting tit for tat seemed to start off with President Trump trying to [14:06] orchestrate this thing where Texas would get more seats. What are you hearing from Republicans [14:10] about how this whole gambit has played, especially since this result in Virginia? [14:14] Republicans, especially those in the White House, were incredibly bullish and sort of a lack of [14:22] imagination. They thought that they could bully Texas into doing mid-10 year redistricting, [14:29] something that had really never been done, to pick up a partisan advantage. And they taunted the [14:33] Democrats, saying there's nothing you're gonna be able to do about it. Just a very simple redrawing, [14:38] we pick up five seats. But we have a couple of other states where we'll pick up seats also. [14:43] Well, Democrats took up the challenge, as you note, in California and now Virginia. And at all times, [14:51] approved by the voters. Of course, Republicans arguing that they were rigged maps. Because the [14:57] Democrats are in charge of it, and they ran a dishonest gambit to try to rig the system. [15:03] Democrats in the state saying this was about leveling fairness across the country. They have [15:10] at least leveled the playing field against what Republicans have been able to do in red states, [15:17] and maybe at this point even gotten a partisan advantage in a year where Democrats were already [15:22] heavily favored to take the House of Representatives. At this moment then, [15:27] should Republicans be more nervous about the midterms than they were a few months ago, [15:30] or what's the sense? I mean, frankly, they shouldn't be nervous. They're going to lose [15:33] the House of Representatives. Like that's just a fact you think at this point? At this point, [15:38] I think it is. And frankly, that was the case with or without the redistricting. I actually don't [15:43] think that the Texas redistricting would have allowed Republicans to keep the House. This has all [15:50] of the earmarks of a wave election that we're heading to in the midterms for 2026. Well, is all of this [15:56] fully legal? Because did voters in Virginia indeed have the final say over this, or could there be [16:02] legal challenges to stuff like this? So there is still a pending lawsuit at the Virginia Supreme [16:07] Court about the process for the measure getting on the ballot, about the language of the ballot [16:14] initiative itself. We are confident and calling upon the Virginia Supreme Court to do the obvious and [16:20] right result. And that is to strike this thing down. Why? Because it was demonstrated again last night. [16:25] This is a divided state. It's almost 50-50. I would give that a very, very low chance of success. [16:31] Generally, anything like that has to be resolved ahead of time. After the voters have spoken, [16:35] we don't really change outcomes except in the most egregious circumstances. [16:39] The law is with us in Virginia. The facts are with us in Virginia. [16:45] You know, the other way that people have challenged these that will not be the case in Virginia is to [16:52] challenge them as racial gerrymanders. Because in 2018, the Supreme Court said that partisan [16:58] gerrymanders were not going to be justiciable, meaning courts simply could not determine whether [17:04] something was too partisan to violate the Constitution. There were no particular constitutional [17:10] guidance points to look at, no text. They're like, we're staying out of the whole partisan thing. [17:14] You guys can do it. Politicians do what you want. But it is still the case that you cannot use [17:19] race to draw your districts. And so a lawsuit was brought against Texas arguing that that was [17:25] a racial gerrymander. The California maps were challenged arguing those were a racial gerrymander. [17:31] In both cases, the Supreme Court allowed those maps to continue through the midterm elections [17:37] while those cases make their way through the court. So while those maps could still be struck down [17:42] at some point, they will be the maps used for 2026. [17:46] Yeah, we should say last night, a county judge in Virginia ruled against a separate lawsuit that [17:50] challenges this referendum. The state promised to appeal. Ultimately, you'd imagine the state [17:54] Supreme Court will have the final decision here. And Sarah, either way, I got to imagine the average [17:58] voter is like, ugh, gerrymanders. It just sounds icky. Is there room for reform in any of these states or [18:06] nationwide? Or are we just in a different political moment right now? Well, what's kind of a bummer is [18:11] a lot of states have tried to have bipartisan or nonpartisan commissions draw their maps. What's I [18:17] think a little depressing about Virginia is this is a retrenchment back from that, a state that tried to [18:23] have, you know, a bipartisan, nonpartisan commission draw its lines. It had originally been almost perfectly [18:30] divided with Democrats with a one seat majority from its congressional delegation. As you say now, [18:36] it will be completely lopsided, not representing very well the percentages that Virginia has in [18:44] congressional or presidential elections. And we've certainly heard calls from Democrats saying they [18:50] don't like this. Democrats have attempted and asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan [18:57] gerrymandering. They would like a law from Congress that would ban partisan gerrymandering and that [19:03] would give the Supreme Court and lower courts guidance on what factors to consider. We have the [19:08] bill right here to end this all today, but they don't want to. Republicans have not yet gotten on board [19:15] with that. I haven't really seen proposed legislation move very far. But maybe this is what we need to, [19:21] at a minimum, say, we're not going to redistrict every two years. We're going to continue to only [19:27] do it every 10 years. At least that would be better than what we're doing now. [19:32] In your book, you've described how the US Supreme Court, like these justices don't [19:36] necessarily just see the world through a liberal or conservative lens, that there are other kind [19:40] of angles to that. Does that affect how they could see gerrymandering cases? I know we're still waiting [19:45] on their decision on the Voting Rights Act, right? Exactly. So this case called Calais comes out [19:50] of Louisiana. It's on that racial gerrymandering question. And it was kind of interesting the way it came [19:56] up because Louisiana originally only drew one majority minority district. They were sued by [20:03] black voters. And then they drew two majority minority districts and they were sued by white [20:09] voters for racially gerrymandering. And that's the question for the Supreme Court, [20:14] which racial gerrymander was the bad one? If we take Louisiana as one example, [20:20] every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA opportunity district. [20:26] I think it's really hard to predict how the court is going to come out on this based on the oral [20:31] arguments at this point. It really could be one of, if not the last case we get this term. [20:36] But what we've seen from the justices so far is a real exasperation with the gerrymandering process. [20:46] As I mentioned, you know, the Supreme Court had this chance in both Texas and California to weigh [20:51] in on those maps for this midterm election. And they defer to the legislatures in both of those states, [20:58] a red state and a blue state. You see that a lot from the Supreme Court. The same happened in the [21:03] partisan gerrymandering case. They had maps from North Carolina and Maryland, a red state and a blue [21:09] state at that point. So especially in election cases, you will see them try to show a balance [21:16] between the two parties and sort of a what's good for the goose is good for the gander [21:20] in the long term, because Supreme Court justices do not decide cases, they decide questions, [21:26] and they think very long term about the rules that they're setting for the country. [21:31] And that's sort of what your book actually sort of re-schooled me on is how often you see these [21:36] justices kind of vote either unanimously or in packs that you wouldn't expect because of how [21:40] committed they are to keeping these long term things afloat. All right, Sarah Isger, author of [21:45] the new book Last Branch Standing. Thank you so much. Thank you. [21:48] Okay, one more quick break. Now, will there be another segment ahead? I predict yes. Now pay up. [21:55] One last thing is next. [21:57] And one last thing. You wouldn't think politicians would need new creative ways of enriching themselves. [22:06] In recent years, multiple lawmakers have stepped down after being accused of defrauding donors. [22:11] But yesterday, several political candidates were reprimanded for a very 21st century type of [22:16] transgression. Hey, Dan, have you heard of Kalshi? Yeah, the prediction market that lets you trade [22:21] anything from sports to alien sightings. So you might have heard of prediction markets, which are like a [22:27] cross between a sports book and a financial market. So instead of telling a bookie, I want to wager this [22:33] much money that this team will win, he sets odds to make it worth everyone's while. Instead of that, [22:38] this is more like a stock that refers to a specific question, like will the New York Yankees win [22:43] tonight? You can buy shares in a specific outcome and sell them to others willing to buy them, [22:50] similar to odds that price can move up and down until the game is over. [22:55] Except prediction markets are not limited to sports. You can bet on whether it'll rain tomorrow, [23:00] whether oil will top 150 a barrel. One of the most popular markets here is betting on elections. [23:07] Well, yesterday, Kalshi, one of the country's most popular prediction markets, [23:11] announced it was suspending multiple politicians claiming they bet on themselves. [23:16] Hello, Minnesotans. Matt Klein here, running for Congress in Minnesota, too. [23:20] Matt Klein is a state senator in Minnesota. He's a Democrat who's now running for Congress. [23:25] And ahead of his primary, he said he had heard about these prediction markets, [23:29] and out of curiosity, placed 50 bucks on himself to win. That, Kalshi says, is against its rules. [23:36] In a statement, a spokesperson called it political insider trading, to which you might say, [23:41] who cares? Dude was betting on himself to win. He claims it was literally the only 50 bucks he's [23:46] ever spent on the platform. He's apologized and paid a penalty. What do you want? [23:51] But what if he didn't bet on himself to win? What if he had bet on himself to lose? Or what if he just [23:56] bet on the very next action his campaign was going to take? Well, that, Kalshi says, is what happened [24:02] in an even more troubling case of U.S. Senate candidate Mark Moran, an independent from Virginia. [24:08] We're 250 years in. We have to have big, bold, beautiful ideas to change things. [24:14] Kalshi says that Mark Moran put money on whether Mark Moran would run for Senate, which, of course, [24:21] he knew the answer to. Moran yesterday put out a statement admitting, yes, he had placed a hundred [24:26] dollar bet because he claims he wanted to get caught. He wanted to draw attention to these apps [24:31] that he says prey on people. Kalshi says the fact that he was caught and fined and suspended [24:37] shows their system is working. But it does raise a very real issue with these prediction markets. [24:43] To political pundits and weather forecasters, whoever, these platforms present themselves as a [24:47] kind of public service. Like, as the bets come in, we all get to see where the smart money is going. [24:52] But for individuals, there is a real chance you are betting against people who already know what's [24:58] about to happen. After all, you know what they say, if you can't tell who the sucker is at a poker table, [25:04] you're the sucker. Mark Moran, the candidate, by the way, also was a contestant on the reality show [25:12] FBoy Island. I'm told he was banished a few episodes in for being a nice guy. I did not see this [25:18] coming when we started digging through all this. More on all these stories on ABC News Live. In fact, [25:22] I'll be on there this morning in the 9am Eastern hour talking about these prediction markets. [25:26] I'm Brad Milkey. See you tomorrow.