Iranians expected in Pakistan for 2nd round of peace talks: Sources

[0:00] Iran is sending a team to Pakistan for a second round of talks with the United States, according [0:05] to Pakistani and Iranian sources. Iran's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi, [0:11] is expected to arrive tonight with a small delegation. It's unclear whether the U.S. [0:16] will take part, though. It comes after new negotiations failed to materialize earlier [0:21] in the week. During this morning's briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. [0:25] military will maintain the blockade on Iran's ports for as long as it takes, and he urged [0:31] Tehran to cut a peace deal. Iran has an important choice, a chance to make a deal, a good deal, [0:40] a wise deal. Iran has a historic chance to make a serious deal, and the ball is in their court. [0:49] Either way, the War Department stands ready for what comes next, locked and loaded. [0:58] CNN's Elena Treen live this morning at the White House. Are you hearing anything about [1:02] whether the United States is going to show up for these talks? [1:07] Yeah, look, I've been catching up with my sources here, Sarah, and I think the status of this is, [1:12] one, they are obviously aware that the Iranian foreign minister is traveling to Pakistan. I think [1:17] that's obviously a good development for the U.S., which is really trying to get a second round of [1:22] talks between Washington and Tehran in person on the books. But I think they're still working through [1:29] what this could look like. But given that Aragatchi is going to be in Pakistan, and we know that there [1:36] is also a U.S. logistics team that has been in place in Islamabad, really preparing for a potential [1:41] second round of in-person talks, I think it could be likely that we could be seeing some people from [1:48] the Trump administration trying to do that. But right now, it's very much unclear, and I think it's [1:51] all currently being discussed behind those closed doors in that building behind me, Sarah. But this [1:57] could be a significant move. I mean, look, even though we've heard the president in recent days, [2:01] he just repeated this yesterday, that there's no rush. He doesn't want to have pressure on him. [2:06] He's kind of not putting any sort of definitive timeline on this extension of the ceasefire that [2:12] he declared earlier this week. I know from the conversations I've been having throughout the [2:16] Trump administration that they do not want this to drag on longer, and they do not want the [2:20] Iranians to try and drag out talks either. And so they have really been pushing toward trying to get [2:25] a second meeting in person back on the books and also really trying to get negotiations to a place [2:31] where they believe it could lead to a diplomatic solution. That has remained the priority through [2:36] all of this, even as we have reporting that the Pentagon and the military has been preparing [2:41] different options should this ceasefire not produce a peaceful solution. They've been working [2:48] on different target and attack plans. Many of them actually trained on the Strait of Hormuz. [2:54] But overall, they still very much want to reach a deal with the Iranians. So this is a good [2:59] development, but we really have to see where things stand and whether or not this could lead to [3:05] talks in the next couple of days between Trump administration officials and the Iranians, Sarah. [3:09] Yeah, I mean, generally speaking, a diplomatic solution is the only solution unless you want [3:13] a war to go on forever. Elena Treen, we will wait and see what happens with these talks. Thank you so [3:19] much. I do appreciate it. Kate. And joining us right now is CNN Global Affairs Analyst Brett McGurk and [3:23] CNN Political National Security Analyst David Sanger of The New York Times. Good to see you, [3:27] gentlemen. Brett, what do you make of this news that Iran is now sending a delegation, [3:30] one that includes the foreign minister? It's interesting, Kate, because Iran's position has been very clear [3:36] that they will not negotiate so long as we have the blockade on Iranian ports. The messaging from [3:42] the administration in the last 48 hours, we are keeping the blockade, we're going to tighten the [3:46] blockade, and yet you still see Arachi, the foreign minister, going to Islamabad. So that's an [3:51] interesting development. You know, we've talked in the Ukraine context about diplomacy. Often there's a [3:55] lot of motion without foreign movement, and that can mean you're really not making progress. But here, [4:00] even some motion, I think, is important. So it's an interesting sign. I suspect he's going to talk [4:06] to the Pakistanis about where Iran stands, given that they've had trying to get their act together [4:11] in Tehran. Whether or not that leads to a U.S. team going, probably not, but we'll have to see. [4:16] So I think it's a positive development. But, you know, we still have a long way to go to a deal. [4:22] To say the least. And David, you've done some new reporting this week [4:25] on one big aspect that is central to the eventual end result of any of these talks, [4:31] which is what to do about Iran's enriched uranium, what the president has called the nuclear dust, [4:36] if you will. And as to suggest it is, he's trying to suggest it is more insignificant than it actually [4:44] is. Well, I think we have to remember, Kate, this is what this whole thing was about, right? If it had [4:52] not been for the presence of a nuclear program that includes 440 kilograms of near bomb-grade uranium, [5:02] there wouldn't have been an attack to begin with on February 28th, or at least that's the administration's [5:09] position. But their problem now is much larger, because in order to make the president's commitment [5:16] that Iran could never build a bomb real, they need to get not only that 440 kilograms, about 1,000 pounds [5:24] of uranium out of the country, they need to get another 10 tons of material that Iran has. It's [5:32] enriched to lower levels. It's not as close to a bomb. And so that's a pretty comprehensive program, [5:39] very hard to understand how you would do that other than a negotiated release. And here, of course, [5:46] the president is haunted a little bit by the deal that he passed by, or pulled out of in 2018, [5:55] because President Obama managed to get about 97 percent of Iran's stockpile out of the country [6:03] in 2015, 2016. That left them with some, but nothing near what they have today. [6:09] And Brett, one of David's colleagues at the New York Times has some pretty amazing reporting about [6:17] what from sources inside Iran about the state of the supreme leader there, that on that February 28th [6:24] strike that made Mustafa Khamenei the supreme leader now, he was gravely injured, disfigured, [6:33] burned to an extent that he can't speak well. We have not seen or heard. We've seen messages. But it's [6:41] also led to him being in hiding, surrounded by doctors, no electronics around him in order so [6:46] that it can't be detected, which has had him delegating, kind of relegate and leave a lot of [6:51] the responsibility and decision making to the IRGC, including kind of leading on this diplomatic front. [6:58] If this really is the case in the state of the supreme leader, what does that mean for these [7:02] negotiations? Because the central question has remained, who can actually secure a deal on the part [7:08] of the Iranians, that the country will follow? Yeah, Kate, it makes it much harder. I mean, [7:14] negotiating with Iran was difficult even when you had Khamenei, the supreme leader, and he had a, [7:18] he had like a, they called it a five-man group around him that would kind of bless final decisions. [7:24] You kind of knew that was the system. But they still had some fractures in debate, but it was really [7:29] the supreme leader in the office of the supreme leader, the people around him in charge. So if you [7:33] don't have that, the first time since the 1979 revolution, you don't have a supreme leader really firmly [7:39] in charge. And the reporting for the New York Times that he's communicating with written messages, [7:43] kind of like a Osama bin Laden in hiding type situation, makes it even more difficult. Because [7:49] this negotiation, Kate, on nuclear material and sanctions relief, it is complicated, [7:54] complicated stuff. It requires back and forth. It requires adjustments here and there. It's going [7:59] to take time. So if that's how they're making decisions, it's really hard to see the road from [8:04] here to a verifiable nuclear deal. You can maybe come up with a framework arrangement. [8:10] But I just, I go back to where I started. I think we're a long way from any sort of a real [8:14] verifiable nuclear agreement. This is nuclear physics, requires inspections, international [8:19] monitors, and then the sanctions relief is also very important, which is a part of it. [8:23] And I wouldn't put aside the concern about missiles, support for terrorism, and of course the Iranian [8:28] people, which we can't put aside. But obviously these talks are very focused on the nuclear. [8:32] Yeah. And David, just a quote that you had in one of your pieces this week from Robert Malley, [8:37] who's negotiated with the Iranians leading up to the 2015 deal and the failed attempt with the [8:41] Biden administration. Just comparing the style and approach, it just was a fascinating kind of [8:47] pulling together by Malley. Trump is impulsive and temperamental. Iran's leadership is stubborn [8:52] and tenacious. Trump demands immediate results. Iran's leadership plays the long game. [8:57] Trump insists on a flashy headline grabbing outcome. Iran's leadership sweats every detail. [9:02] Trump believes brute force can compel obedience. Iran's leadership is prepared to endure enormous [9:07] pain rather than concede on core interests. And I'm just left thinking, yeah, that means quite a [9:14] bit to how this could ever eventually come to an end. Well, you know, there's a reason, [9:21] Kate, that that agreement in 2015 was 150 pages long, even a little longer, had five annexes to it [9:29] that it took nearly two years to negotiate. Because as Brett suggests here, the devil is truly in the [9:35] details here, what the inspection and verification looks like, how you define no nuclear activity. Does [9:42] that mean no nuclear research? Does that mean that you can keep some of the equipment, but you can't [9:48] actually be putting nuclear material into it? All kinds of complex issues. And so Brett points out, [9:55] rightly, that if you've got this system where it's not clear who's making the decision, that's a lot [10:01] of material to go through. Congressman, let me ask you first on the news that we just got in from [10:07] Pakistani and Iranian sources that Iran is now planning to send a delegation to Pakistan for talks. [10:14] Unclear what the United States will do, but what's your reaction? Well, I hope negotiations continue. [10:24] There needs to be a diplomatic resolution to this situation. I don't believe you're going to be [10:30] able to bomb it out. I think there is a matter of trust right now. The Iranians don't trust the United [10:37] States. And of course, we don't trust Iran. And so I think that getting and engaging more of our allies [10:46] in it so that there's individuals. I thank Pakistan for what it's doing. But you have to negotiate your [10:51] way out of this. And that's going to take sitting down and having real dialogue and conversation. [10:57] And that could take some time. I would hope that part of the deal that is struck is that the [11:03] straight is open while these negotiations take place so that there are thorough negotiations of [11:09] which both sides can agree. And people don't suffer because of the cost of oil, the cost of [11:16] fertilizer and rising costs that are affecting both the American people, of course, as we're feeling [11:22] right now, and others around the world.