Hormuz on edge: Trump caught between Iran’s diplomacy and war factions — This is America

[0:09] America, where the U.S. president says his military strikes have killed so many senior Iranian leaders [0:16] that the U.S. doesn't know who's left to deal with. So how's that now complicating negotiations [0:21] with the U.S.? I'll be back with more on that later. But first, here's Cyril Vanier in our [0:26] Washington studio. Hi, Dijon Castro. Thank you very much. Seven weeks after the U.S. and Israel [0:32] launched a war against Iran, the Iranian establishment has not collapsed and appears [0:37] to believe that it can still shape the terms of negotiation with the United States. [0:41] While some voices in Iran are engaging in talks, a new generation of Revolutionary Guard is driving [0:46] a harder bargain, ready to maximize economic hurt on the global economy by threatening maritime traffic [0:52] through the Strait of Hormuz. So did the U.S. get caught out and underestimate the conflicting points [0:58] of power in Iran? Well, Donald Trump says that he has Iran right where he wants them. Here's the U.S. [1:04] president talking to CNBC. We're going to end up with a great deal. I think it's got I think they [1:11] have no choice. We've taken out their Navy. We've taken out their Air Force. It's a it is regime [1:16] change no matter what you want to call it. Iran can get themselves on a very good footing if they [1:21] make a deal. They can make themselves into a strong nation again, a wonderful nation again. [1:27] We've totally won the war. You know, if you read The New York Times, you think, oh, gee, [1:30] what are we surrendering? We have totally beat them. But despite that, questions remain as to whether [1:36] Donald Trump's team is talking to the right people in Iran. Now you have the IRGC practically [1:44] becoming the state. You're talking about an IRGC that is now almost in control of governance. [1:51] They make the final decision. And that's even more dangerous. Almost every one of us voted to [1:57] designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Those votes, they didn't [2:06] just happen for no reason. We have no way to control what comes next, which most experts believe [2:15] would be the Iranian Revolutionary Guard led government rising up and being just as repressive [2:25] and antagonistic as the current democracy and perhaps even more committed to the acquisition [2:34] of nuclear weapons. And both sides, the United States and Iran, have advertised their red line, [2:42] their non-negotiables. But who decides if a deal is reached? Here in the U.S., there is little doubt [2:47] that that decision ultimately rests with the president. In Iran, though, there are multiple [2:52] voices delivering sometimes mixed signals. Here's Phil Lavelle. [2:58] There is a standoff in the Strait of Hormuz. One day it's open. Next, it's closed. [3:03] You will return to your previous borderline, Iran. [3:06] And now the U.S. blocking it, firing on and seizing Iranian flag vessels trying to get through. [3:12] Iran calls it armed piracy and theft, chaos on a critical waterway, and a chokehold on a huge [3:20] chunk of the world's oil supply. Here is where we were, war. And here is where we are now, [3:26] ceasefire. And here is where America wants to be, and quickly, a deal. But it's that final stretch, [3:31] that final push, getting to a deal that is proving to be quite the challenge. [3:36] We've made very clear what our red lines are, what things we're willing to accommodate them on, [3:40] and what things we're not willing to accommodate them on. And we've made that as clear as we [3:45] possibly could. And they have chosen not to accept our terms. [3:50] But who exactly are the Americans negotiating with? Well, we hear the words Iranian regime [3:56] quite a lot. And President Trump says there are new figures in charge. [4:00] It's a regime change. They are much more, I think, frankly, more intelligent and more moderate. [4:06] But who is making the decisions? Who is he referring to? Is it the new supreme leader who [4:12] took over after his father was killed in the opening days of the war? [4:16] Mashtaba Khamenei hasn't been seen in person since, just occasional messages online leading [4:21] to questions over who really is in control. [4:25] Is it the diplomats? They are the ones issuing the public statements after all. [4:29] The likes of the foreign minister and the president, the public faces, [4:32] even doing the rounds on U.S. and international media. [4:36] All of this is America's fault. We did not start this war. We are only defending ourselves. [4:43] Or is it the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's internal, much feared security force? [4:51] It was the IRGC that said on Saturday the strait would remain closed, [4:55] just hours after the foreign minister said it would be reopened. [4:58] And the question is, what next for President Trump, who appears to be caught [5:02] between two competing narratives? [5:06] Remember, too, this is about more than the strait. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a big part of it. [5:11] It's been enriching uranium, it says, for peaceful means. [5:14] President Trump pulled out of the original nuclear deal in his first term. [5:18] We have terminated a terrible, terrible deal that should have never, ever been made. [5:27] But that took the previous administration 18 months to reach, and that was during peacetime. [5:33] The current one is trying to reach a solution in a matter of days and in the midst of an active [5:38] conflict. Will more talks actually happen? If so, they'll be in Islamabad. [5:42] But it is here, 11,000 kilometers away, that the ultimate decision of what America does next [5:47] will be made by one man. As for how Iran responds or who decides on Iran's response, [5:53] well, that is a whole other question. Phil Lavelle, Al Jazeera, Washington. [5:59] And Al Jazeera's Mike Hanna is live at the White House. So, Mike, does the White House at this point [6:03] still feel that it has the upper hand in negotiations? [6:08] Well, President Trump certainly does believe he has the upper hand in negotiations. He said so [6:13] repeatedly. He stated again and again that the U.S. has already won the war. He insists that the [6:21] nuclear dust, as he puts it, which is the chemical, the nuclear munitions that the Iranians have for [6:30] peaceful purposes, they say. He says that has all been destroyed by the bombers. But at the same time, [6:37] he insists that he will continue with this war, even though he says he has already won it. But as to [6:44] what the White House thinks, people within the White House, well, that's very difficult because they refer [6:49] everything to what the president thinks. One very brief example. In the course of the day, [6:54] we've been trying to ascertain exactly what time this ceasefire ends. The president himself has given [7:01] four different timings for when it should end. The White House are telling us all the time, [7:06] just follow the words of the president. Well, we follow the words of the president, but then it's [7:11] very difficult to find out exactly which words to follow, exactly what time he has specified [7:16] for the ceasefire to end. Al Jazeera is Mike Hanna, live from the White House. Thank you very much, [7:22] Mike. Now, Heidi Jo Castro is back with us and takes a look at what the U.S. media has been saying [7:27] about the current state of this conflict. [7:29] Cyril, the American media briefly celebrated when the Iranian foreign minister announced last week [7:36] the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. But that quickly changed when the Revolutionary Guard [7:41] shot at tankers and said the Strait was back closed. So how was that received by Trump's inner circle? [7:47] Well, the news site Axios captured the surprise of a senior administration official who's quoted as [7:52] saying, we thought they, that's the U.S. deal team, were negotiating with the right people. [7:58] But what happened is the Iranian team went back and the IRGC and those kinds of people said, [8:03] oh, no, no, you don't speak for us. Another U.S. official said, we aren't sure who's in charge [8:09] and neither do they. Yes, that is confusing and complicating the latest talks as the conflict [8:15] over Hormuz threatens to escalate. The Washington Post said those talks are on shaky footing after [8:21] U.S. seizure of ship in Strait of Hormuz. And National Public Radio put it simply, peace talks [8:27] are in doubt. So what does Trump think now? Well, he told the New York Post that he will [8:32] not be rushed to end the Iran war. And he lashed out at Democrats and Republicans for urging him [8:39] to settle. As a negotiator, and I'm a great negotiator, he's quoted as fuming to the paper, [8:45] how bad is it when you have people from your own country trying to reach a deal? They are helping [8:50] the other side. The other side has nothing. They have no cards, but they are using this to delay. [8:57] And delay is not good for Trump as gas prices tick higher and his approval ratings at home tick [9:03] lower. For now, let's go back to you, Cyril. So let's take a quick look at what makes this current [9:10] moment, this window for negotiation, different from the one that talks in 2015 that delivered a deal [9:15] with Iran, ultimately. The main point of the JCPOA, as the deal is known, was to significantly restrict [9:22] Iran's uranium enrichment and nuclear capacity. In return, Tehran got gradual sanctions relief. [9:28] That agreement took about 20 months and several rounds of talks before it was signed. Now, [9:32] both sides are aiming for a deal within days in the middle of a war. And this time, [9:37] it's not just about the nuclear issue. The Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damages and a [9:42] permanent end to the conflict, all of those things are on the agenda. The U.S. has also moved away [9:48] from what was a State Department-led model to a team much closer to the White House, while Iran is [9:55] made up of career diplomats, politicians and subject matter experts. That's the delegation that they sent [10:00] to Islamabad. Well, the stakes are higher, too. In 2015, failure to comply would have resulted [10:05] in economic sanctions. Now, the alternative to a deal could be the resumption of the war [10:11] and the bombing of infrastructure really across the region. Over the weekend, there appeared to be [10:17] a breakthrough. Donald Trump announced that the Strait of Hormuz was completely open, [10:21] and Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Arakshi, agreed. Suddenly, there seemed to be alignment on a major [10:26] issue. But then, within hours, Iran's Revolutionary Guard opened fire on a commercial tanker, [10:32] suggesting that there might be significant divisions within Iran. Here's Alex Baird. [10:38] For questions stateside, who are we actually talking to in Iran? This was allegedly broadcast [10:43] to ships in the Strait of Hormuz by the IRGC, and has been fueling that debate online. [10:53] Imam Khomeini, not by the tweets of some idiot. [10:56] The interpretation online is that the idiot being referred to is the Iranian foreign minister. [11:02] But again, the key word, allegedly. That's led some in the US to say there are now two [11:07] Irans. National security analyst Alex Plitzer says the IRGC are blocking civilian leadership [11:14] from reaching a deal. And the understanding in Washington is they are poised to seize power. [11:20] The IRGC pumping out videos like this. Shut up, Yankee. With an increasingly hardline edge. [11:27] Recent analysis from the Institute of War now at the centre of the debate that within Iran, [11:32] there is now a major power struggle. Civilians trying to talk peace, the IRGC saber rattling and [11:38] tightening control. Classic regime chaos. Many voices in the US now saying, if that's the case, [11:45] is there even any point in those talks? They have to be shown that they can't win and we have to [11:53] break their will. Right-leaning journalist Eric Doherty believes the writing is on the wall, [11:58] that Trump's finger is on the trigger and he's ready to pull. Bill Mitchell confident that the [12:03] president is in complete control and that no matter who is in control in Iran, they can take the deal [12:09] or face the consequences. Let's bring in our panel now. Former U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain, [12:16] William Roebuck joins us in the studio. We're also joined by a former U.S. policy planner at the [12:21] State Department, John Alterman. Thank you very much to both of you for being with us. [12:24] Ambassador, on the back of these reports and the fact that we saw one thing from the Iranian foreign [12:32] minister, Abbas Arakshi, who was in favour of opening the Strait of Hormuz, announced it to be open on [12:37] the Iranian side. And hours later, the IRGC did something different. They opened fire on commercial [12:41] ships. So one side saying, open the other side, shut it down. Is the U.S. negotiating team even [12:47] talking to the right people? It's a good question, Cyril. I think there are some fractures in the [12:54] Iranian regime. But my sense, you know, looking at it and talking to analysts who know that regime [13:00] very closely, is that those fractures have not been significant in terms of hurting their command [13:08] and control or hurting their overall posture in the negotiations. I think it's still, it's a bit [13:15] amazing, but after all the attack that has been done on the regime and on the country of Iran, [13:21] I think that regime still is relatively cohesive. Yes, some fracturing, but I would say overall that [13:29] they are still operating with a fairly significant degree of command and control and cohesiveness [13:36] in terms of a diplomatic position. You know, and this issue of moderates in Iran versus [13:43] conservatives in Iran, something that goes back decades and decades. There has always been this [13:48] element in Iran of infighting. What's different now is it's not really clear there's an arbiter. [13:54] Ayatollah Khamenei was an arbiter. He could, the previous Ayatollah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, [13:59] the father, was able to be decisive in these. And sometimes he chose the more moderate course, [14:06] and sometimes he chose the course of resistance. With his son, it's not clear he's alive. It's not [14:13] clear if he's disabled. It's not clear he's in control. It's not clear he has the support of [14:18] anybody. The role of an arbiter is different. It seems to me the infighting is normal. What's [14:23] different is we're not sure how the infighting can or will be resolved. Although the division [14:29] has been present since the early days of the Islamic Revolution, 1979. [14:33] Well, you say that it's not clear that the supreme leader is alive. Sorry, that was floated by [14:38] senior Trump administration officials in the early days of the war. But even the defense secretary [14:43] seems to have walked away from that now, saying he might be severely wounded, severely disfigured. [14:47] He's no longer speculating that Mushtaba Khamenei might actually be dead. However, it is [14:53] the case that the U.S. president early in this bombing campaign has said that the U.S. had [14:58] killed, in fact, so many Iranian leaders that the U.S. might be left without interlocutors. Listen to [15:04] this. Their leaders are all gone. The next set of leaders are all gone. And the next set of leaders [15:11] are mostly gone. And now nobody wants to be a leader over there anymore. We're having a hard time. We want [15:17] to talk to them, and there's nobody to talk to. So, Ambassador, what do you think of that? Is it [15:22] possible? Is it the case that the U.S. may have actually killed people that they actually wanted [15:29] to talk to? Well, there's been significant regime decapitation, as they say. Clearly, [15:36] they killed significant ranks of top leaders. I think they probably did kill a few people who could [15:46] have been useful in these negotiations. But that has happened. It is what it is. My sense is that [15:55] they have a regime that is built on redundancy, and they have been able to replace sort of next man [16:03] standing. They have put people in positions, and they have managed to carry on. The amazing thing to [16:09] me so far, although the fighting is at a ceasefire right now, but for six weeks, even with all that [16:16] decapitation, they were able to respond in the moment and in retaliation in ways that were measured [16:24] and were very specific to what they had received in terms of a military thrust. So I think they have [16:32] managed to replace leadership and to keep going. John Olderman, there was a line in Axios reporting [16:40] that was attributed to a senior U.S. official whom, when they saw the IRGC opening fire on commercial [16:47] tankers just after the Iranian foreign minister had said the Strait of Hormuz is open, they said, [16:52] oh, it looks like the people we've—the way this was interpreted by U.S. officials was the people we [16:57] are talking to or actually being then undermined by the IRGC. Do you feel right now there is continuity [17:05] in the negotiations, in the talks, communications between the U.S. and Iran? [17:09] I think there is. I think every government, including the U.S. government that I'm familiar with, [17:15] you talk to negotiators. The negotiators are trying to represent the government. Sometimes [17:21] they lie. Sometimes they don't know what's happening. I think that that sort of—there's always [17:25] a sort of distance between the people who are doing the diplomacy and the people who are making [17:31] the statecraft decisions at home. Again, I think that the difference— [17:36] So this is not particularly unusual? [17:38] I don't think it's totally unusual. I think that the difference is it is not at all clear to me who is [17:45] actually calling the shots. That's a little different for Iran, although the confusion about [17:51] who's calling the shots is fairly customary in Iran. So as the U.S. and Iran both weigh their options [17:58] right now within this window that allows for some diplomacy, one thing they both have in common [18:04] is that they do not trust each other. Both sides expect that they're going to be either lied to or [18:09] bombed or otherwise deceived or manipulated. Here's Al-Shazeera's Manuel Rapallo. [18:15] Iran agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief in 2015 [18:20] under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. [18:25] In 2018, Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal. And last year, widespread sanctions [18:30] were reimposed on Iran. The two countries later entered indirect talks with hopes of reviving that [18:35] agreement. But after five rounds of negotiations, Israel and then the U.S. carried out strikes targeting [18:41] military and nuclear infrastructure. And Iran retaliated. Indirect talks resumed again [18:47] earlier this year, with Oman as mediator. On February 27th, Oman's foreign minister said [18:53] a deal was, quote, within reach. The next day, the U.S. and Israel launched their assault on Iran. [18:59] So the Iranians may have good reason to not trust the U.S. going into these negotiations. [19:04] But so does the U.S. In 1995 and 1996, Iran secretly began pursuing nuclear technology, [19:11] signing agreements with China and Russia to work on previously decommissioned nuclear facilities. [19:16] In 2002, two secret nuclear sites in Natanz and Iraq were revealed, leading the U.S. to accuse [19:23] Tehran of attempting to build nuclear weapons. Now, as we mentioned, in 2015, Iran agreed to [19:29] restrict its uranium enrichment. In 2019, Iran began enriching uranium to well above the 3.67 percent [19:36] limit of the JCPOA. By 2021, the country was enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, a major step closer [19:44] to reaching the 90 percent threshold for weapons-grade uranium. There's also Iran's support for its [19:49] regional allies, especially over the past few years. In 2023, the Houthis, who are backed by Iran, [19:56] launched hundreds of missiles and drones and merchant ships in the Red Sea. In 2024, the Houthis [20:02] directly attacked a U.S.-owned and operated ship. And on March 2nd, most recently, Hezbollah joined the war [20:09] on Iran's behalf, exchanging attacks with U.S. ally Israel. [20:13] That's Manuel Rapolo. John Alterman, you wanted to address this trust gap, trust deficit. [20:18] I spoke to Wendy Sherman, who is one of the negotiators of the JCPOA, shortly after, [20:23] and I asked about this issue of trust with the Iranians. And I was surprised she was very [20:27] dismissive. You even needed trust. Her point was, you need an agreement that is clear, that is [20:34] verifiable, that takes the place of trust, because I got the sense that she didn't even think trust [20:40] was going to be on the table. I'm not sure there's trust, but I'm not sure there's ever [20:43] been trust, and certainly after the conduct both ways. Trust is not what we need here. We need an [20:49] agreement that gives us a path forward to resolve some of these issues. Yeah, so it's not actually a [20:54] factor, not needed. And in fact, the negotiations, you could argue, are taking place because there is no [20:59] trust. Ambassador? I think so. I think in a negotiation like this, what you need is a [21:05] fairly precise calculation of interests on each side and some sense by each side that they have [21:10] some leverage and some stake in the game that there can be an agreement and that it will be enforced [21:17] and people can move forward from there. And a verification mechanism both ways. [21:21] So if both sides want to establish leverage and really shape the negotiating space for the other [21:27] side, or rather limit, constrain the negotiating space for the other side, my question is, [21:33] in the last seven weeks, has Donald Trump's strategy worked? There's been bombing, now there's [21:39] an economic blockade, right, with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. So there's been kinetic action [21:45] and now economic action. Has it worked to constrain Iran and shape their negotiating environment? [21:51] I think, you know, Bill's point is exactly right, that you need to sort of shape what [21:57] your adversary can do. It seems to me that in this case, each side thinks that time is on its side. [22:04] The Iranians think that they can take pain for longer than the United States. The United States [22:08] thinks we can inflict lots of pain and we can inflict more. And it feels to me like where we are now [22:17] is each side trying to capitalize on the fact that it has more time than the other. That ultimately [22:25] turns into a game of chicken. And as we know with games of chicken, sometimes they work and sometimes [22:31] they don't. Ambassador Roebuck, we've watched Donald Trump, you know, want to set the stage for [22:38] negotiations that would be favorable to the U.S. in multiple different arenas and different settings, [22:42] right? He's done it with tariffs. He's done it in different ways. Do you think it is working [22:47] in this arena against Iran? His techniques are working. I mean, his use of threatening language, [22:56] for example. I think the blockade was a very savvy move to put additional pressure on Iran and to take [23:04] away their positive use of the Strait of Hormuz. I think the problem he's facing is that there's a part, [23:13] I think, of his psychology. I'm not sure he wants a deal. I think he is. He's not predisposed to reach [23:20] some sort of diplomatic agreement with the Iranian side. And it's creating, I think. What makes you say [23:27] that? I just feel like he is based on his previous history, 10 years of railing against the JCPOA, [23:36] railing against the efforts of President Obama, former President Carter. I think he has locked himself [23:42] into a stance that the only good agreement with the Iranian side is essentially a capitulation, [23:49] that we give them terms and they accept them. Is that still on the table at this point, [23:56] capitulation? I think it's what the president still wants. I think the president is determined [24:01] to make the Iranians cry uncle. But there's no sign that it's coming. From the outside looking in, [24:06] and granted, we are not in those rooms. We don't know how close or how far they are from their goal, [24:10] right? But from the outside looking in, there isn't a sign, zero, that capitulation might be on the way [24:17] or around the corner. Except the president's language demanding it. And I think the president [24:22] still thinks that with American firepower targeting intelligence, the ability to block the strait, [24:29] all those things, that he can make them collapse or fear collapse and give him what he wants. I think [24:36] what Bill's years of diplomacy are all about, how do you help the other side save face? How do you make [24:42] it easier to accept? The president's not interested in making it easier to accept. He's interested in [24:46] showing how he dominated a weaker party. And that desire to come away showing he dominated rather than [24:56] come away with an agreement that lets you build toward resolving the issue further down the road, [25:01] I think maybe something that leads us toward more violence, rather than a near term agreement, [25:07] whether in the long term, it leads us to a better agreement or some sort of collapse or something [25:12] else. That's, I think, the president's bet. But I'm not sure, you know, where other parties are on [25:17] this. So we wanted to ask Americans what they want since this is being conducted, this war and the [25:23] ceasefire and the negotiation on their behalf. Here's Al Jazeera's Heidi Jo Castro. [25:27] We're lucky to get visitors from all over the country to Washington, Cyril, as this gives us [25:33] the opportunity to talk to people from all sorts of places. And today I asked them if they have hope [25:39] for these negotiations with Iran. I just really have hope in that nothing bad keeps going on to [25:46] the soldiers that are being deployed there. Whatever it is that's happening over there, whatever [25:51] negotiation, I don't think it's worth risking the lives of many soldiers. Do you have hope for [25:57] negotiations right now between the U.S. and Iran? Not particularly. Why is that? Because I don't [26:03] think the people that are negotiating have the skills to negotiate. On the U.S. side or Iran's side? [26:08] On the U.S. side. I have no idea about the Iran side. Do you think it was a mistake or good policy [26:13] for Trump to have then withdrawn the U.S. from the Iranian nuclear deal? It was a very bad idea. [26:19] Withdrawing was stupid. How so? Well, I mean, everything I've read and everything I've [26:25] heard is that it was working. You know, they were being very closely monitored and it was working. [26:30] So, you know, that's that's what keeps happening. All the things that are working are getting broken. [26:36] And there we have it, the opinions of some American voices on these negotiations. Cyril? [26:43] Heidi, thank you very much. Ambassador Roebuck, well, both of you, I should say, have been involved in [26:47] diplomacy. I'm interested in hearing from both of you on how these kinds of moments play out [26:52] behind closed doors. And Ambassador Roebuck, I'm mindful of the fact that you've done [26:57] boots on the ground diplomacy. If I'm not mistaken, you were embedded with U.S. forces in northeastern [27:02] Syria, but on the diplomatic front of what they were doing. So what happens in a moment like this [27:10] behind closed doors? Well, to be honest, the visibility we have in this negotiation is [27:18] is not good at all. I gather from what I've read that they exchanged positions. They spent a lot of [27:25] time, you know, sort of examining each other's positions. But I'm not at all clear how much [27:32] progress they made, actually, on the previous negotiation, round of negotiations. The Iranians [27:37] seem to think they made a lot of progress. The American side, led by Vice President Vance, [27:42] was dismissive, at least publicly. Again, there's so much spin from each side about [27:50] what happened inside a room which we don't have visibility on. It's difficult to know precisely [27:56] what went on. But it seemed like the gaps were fairly significant. They made progress, [28:02] but they didn't close it. And it's not surprising in one round of negotiations. [28:05] John, I'll turn it real quick. Go ahead. [28:07] There's a real disjuncture here, because the U.S. is a much more powerful country, [28:12] and certainly even more powerful after these military actions. But for the Iranians, [28:16] this is existential. They've been preparing for it for 50 years. They have the same negotiating team [28:21] that's been negotiating for decades. They know all our moves. This is the most important issue for them. [28:27] And I think that disparity between us and them, the president bets it works for them, [28:32] the Iranians are betting it works for them. [28:33] John Alterman, Ambassador William Roebuck, thank you very much to both of you for joining the program [28:38] today. That's it from us here in Washington, D.C. And on This Is America, we will keep following [28:42] the decisions that shape the U.S. and influence the rest of the world. Thank you for joining us. [28:47] Back to Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha.