Trump announces indefinite Iran ceasefire: What it means for the war

[0:00] So we've got a little bit of breaking news here. There's a new statement from President Trump just [0:03] posted on his Truth Social platform. He says this, quote, based on the fact that the government of [0:09] Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so, and upon the request of Pakistani officials, [0:14] we have been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders [0:18] and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I have therefore directed our military [0:23] to continue the blockade and in all other respects remain ready and able and will therefore extend [0:29] the ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted and discussions are concluded one way [0:35] or the other. President Donald J. Trump. Barack Ravid, I mean, how do you read between the lines [0:39] of this? I mean, the president here clearly, we will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time [0:44] as their proposal is submitted. You were talking just at the top of the show about thinking we [0:50] could see this resumption and hostilities any moment. Seems like the president is taking that [0:53] off the table for now. What say you? Well, first, we said, right, that Vice President Vance [1:01] postponed his trip to Pakistan indefinitely. I think President Trump here announced that there [1:07] will be a ceasefire indefinitely. He did not give any time frame for this extension of the ceasefire. [1:16] And I think what we see here is what, you know, I think we discussed, you know, earlier in the show. [1:23] President Trump wants to end the war. He did not want to resume it. He wants a diplomatic solution. [1:30] He thinks that all the military objectives, as far as I, again, this is what I hear from people [1:37] around him. He thinks that the military objectives have mostly been achieved. And therefore, the other [1:43] objectives that still need to be achieved will be better achieved through a diplomatic deal, [1:49] especially when it comes to Iran's nuclear program, its enrichment program, and its enriched uranium [1:56] stockpiles. And I think this is the reason that President Trump just now announced that he's [2:04] extending the ceasefire indefinitely. I think this means that he wants a deal. The problem is [2:10] that if you announce such a thing, you take a lot of your leverage away. And while the blockade [2:19] still will still continue, I'm not sure that the Iranians will now feel that there's credible [2:25] military threat. Therefore, I'm not sure it will lead to concessions. [2:30] Richard Haas, always wonderful to see you. Thank you so much for being here. [2:33] What do you make of what the president has announced here? I have to say, the language alone in this post [2:40] is remarkably sober by President Trump's standards. [2:45] Well, I think what happened is people look at the implications, for example, of resuming [2:49] conflict to start attacking. And we don't have, essentially, a serious target left anymore. [2:57] Plus, renewed warfare opens up the possibility of Iranian retaliation against the countries of the [3:03] region. That would be a disaster. So I think the president wisely extended the ceasefire. And I think [3:10] what you have now, Casey, even though you don't have formal negotiations, I think this is an interesting [3:16] moment for signal passing, whether it's direct or through Pakistan or whatever. Because what you [3:21] could have, for example, is the United States could signal what we would be prepared to do in standing [3:26] down the blockade, what we would require of Iran. Or we could send some messages about nuclear issues [3:32] or what have you, or what we would want in order to get the talks restarted. So I actually think this [3:38] is a, it's actually a positive, a positive development here. [3:42] One of the pieces of this message was him, the president, saying that they're going to wait for [3:48] the Iranians to come back with a proposal of some sort. And Barack Ravid was on earlier reporting about [3:55] splits, essentially, between the military and civilian wings of the leadership of Iran. What role do you [4:03] think that's playing here? Well, it's both ironic and it's serious. It's ironic because the United [4:10] States is in no small part responsible for it. The United States and Israel, all the targeted killings [4:15] of Iranian political, clerical, and military leaders created a leadership vacuum. And what you now have [4:22] is all sorts of people getting their footing, competing with one another. So it doesn't come as any [4:28] surprise. The other day when the Iranians sent their delegation to Islamabad, they could have filled [4:34] Madison Square Garden with it. There were so many people representing so many constituencies. [4:40] So I think giving them some time and putting the ball in their court, letting them propose something [4:45] rather than jamming them with an American position. I think this is much better. It forces them to come [4:50] to terms with one another. And we're not put in the position of putting on the table something that [4:56] looks unrealistic or from their point of view, insulting to their dignity or pride. So I actually like [5:03] this. It gives everyone a little bit of time to take a breath and it gives them some time to sort [5:09] themselves out. [5:09] What do you think are the best and worst case scenarios sitting here today? [5:14] Well, the worst we already alluded to, which is that talks, for whatever reason, don't go forward [5:21] because the Iranians can't come to agreement or we've ultimately put something on that we reject [5:26] out of hand. And then you have a resumption of hostilities and things escalate. And bad situations [5:32] could get worse. And that would be the definition of that. A lesser bad situation would simply be the [5:38] strait stays closed, that you don't have active hostilities, but you have a closed strait of [5:43] Hormuz, which leaves everybody, Iran as well as the world, worse off economically. The best is [5:50] obviously you get some kind of a deal on the strait that allows it to reopen and it puts a limit on [5:56] Iranian control or influence. And then secondly, you deal with either the nuclear issue, you know, [6:03] to some degree, you don't have to necessarily solve it, but you deal with it, you park it in an [6:08] acceptable place. I don't think it's realistic to think we're going to get a deal on other issues [6:13] like Iranian support for proxy groups, Iranian ballistic missiles, what have you. My own sense [6:19] is that that's too ambitious. But the two principal issues, the strait and the nuclear issue, [6:25] getting some resolution of those two on terms we could live with, I think that's the best we could [6:30] hope and we could hope for. And I think it's, I think it's a possibility. I don't, I don't think [6:33] anybody should rule it out. As you sit here and lay that out for us very smartly, of course, [6:40] it just occurs to me that, you know, the strait of Hormuz was not on the table as an issue really [6:45] before we started this war. Do you see America, if, if we have that best case scenario that you laid [6:52] out, are we better off in the wake of this or are we not? No, we'll be lucky if we're not worse off [6:59] or not too much worse off. You can't be better off with the strait of Hormuz because there was [7:03] no issue there beforehand. So at best you get back to where you were and probably more realistically, [7:09] we won't get all the way there, but maybe we can get 90% of the way there. The nuclear issue, [7:15] again, it wasn't an active issue. Iran was not about to do anything new when we started this war [7:20] six weeks ago. There's no intelligence there. The kind of deal we're going to have to negotiate [7:25] is probably the sort of thing that Messrs, Witkoff and Kushner were negotiating just beforehand [7:31] and rejected. So we're going to come back to some, you know, the same set of issues, by the way, [7:36] that the Obama administration negotiated and this administration wouldn't negotiate. [7:41] Inevitably, we're going to, we're going to end up there, but are we better off or worse off even [7:46] under the best case? My sense is the only positive is Iran is for years going to be weaker, [7:51] but they'll be able to regenerate their drones and ballistic missiles and the rest. [7:57] The downsides, though, are many. Iran's learned some dangerous lessons about its ability to [8:02] influence the region and the world by controlling the straits. American munition stockpiles are much [8:07] diminished. America's relations with its Gulf partners, with its allies in Europe and Asia [8:13] are strained to an extraordinary degree. American standing in the world is down. So overall, [8:19] even under the best case, it's hard to see, shall we say, that we're, that we're better off. I just [8:24] don't see it. I think history will be, will be probably quite critical. What again was a [8:30] discretionary war, what I would call a war of choice that didn't have to be fought at this time. [8:35] I think history is going to be quite tough, that the results won't, won't justify the decision to go [8:39] to war. All right. Ambassador Richard Haas, always really appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much [8:44] for coming on. Ambassador Roger Carstens. Ambassador, good to see you again. What do you make of [8:50] President Trump extending the ceasefire? It sounds indefinitely. You know, Jake, thanks for having me [8:57] on. Yeah, it sounds like that's what he's trying to do. I think in terms of what I am interested in [9:04] always, and that's bringing hostages home. I think in a way, when you extend a ceasefire like this, [9:08] you lose a little bit of leverage. I think in my perfect world, we would have ended the ceasefire [9:13] and at least had the threat of military force in the effort to increase leverage, which could be [9:18] used not only to achieve our political military aims, but also to bring some of the six Americans [9:22] that are held by the Iranians home to the United States. I want to get to those Americans in a sec, [9:27] but I want to also ask, the Trump administration is considering imposing a new round of sanctions [9:33] targeting Iran. Would that help in getting Iran to negotiate not only for some sort of peace deal [9:42] having to do with this war, but also to release these Americans? You know, I would say that we've [9:49] sanctioned Iran with pretty much everything at any point on every single part of their economy, [9:55] their political life, etc. I almost can't imagine another sanction really causing any pressure to [10:01] the Iranian government. You know, I think the threat of military force, however, that's a different [10:05] story, and I think that's very real. But adding a few more sanctions to the stack that have already [10:10] been levied on Iran, I just really can't see that adding anything. [10:14] In the midst of all this, of course, you've already noted there are Americans, two at least, [10:20] that the U.S. designates as being wrongfully detained by Iran right now. The Foley Foundation [10:25] says there are at least six, as you note. The two that the U.S. designated as being wrongfully [10:31] detained are Reza Valizadeh. He's a 49-year-old Iranian-American journalist. [10:36] And Kamran Hekmati, he's a 70-year-old Jewish Iranian-American. Both have been detained in [10:42] Iran for more than a year, believed to be held in a notorious prison in Tehran. Are these detained [10:50] Americans part of the negotiations at all? I don't recall hearing anybody in the administration say [10:57] that they are. You know, Jake, all we have is that story that came out in the Washington Post on the [11:04] 10th of April, saying that prior to J.D. Vance heading off to Pakistan, that the Americans would [11:10] be brought up as part of the negotiations. However, after the negotiations took place in Islamabad, [11:16] I've heard nothing and no one that I've known has heard anything about the Americans being a part [11:21] of those negotiations. I mean, you know where my head's at. I encourage the administration to make [11:27] this a part of their negotiated aims. And let's make an effort to try to bring them home. [11:30] To the west of Iran is Kuwait, where a Kuwaiti-American journalist is being detained. [11:36] His name is Ahmed Shahab Eldeen. Press freedom advocates say he was arrested after sharing [11:41] videos related to the Iran war, such as this video on March 2nd of a U.S. fighter jet crashing [11:47] west of Kuwait City. Could Eldeen be part of negotiation talks, even though it's not related [11:55] specifically to Iran? [11:57] Yeah, Jake, you remember what happened when we made a grand bargain with Russia on the 1st [12:05] of August of 2024? We did what was called enlarging the problem. We expanded the amount [12:11] and the, I guess, numbers of hostages held in different countries to bring together a deal [12:16] that might have been inconceivable had it been just done in a bilateral channel. So there's [12:20] a chance that he might be brought into this. Also, additionally, Kuwait might be able to [12:25] or be willing to just make a good deal with the United States to let them know that, look, [12:29] you know, publicly we're going to have this stance, but privately we'd like to send a very [12:33] clear message to the United States by releasing him back to you. So my hope is that he gets [12:39] released soon. I know that the Kuwaitis have ramped up their national security laws, and [12:43] he actually came and perhaps posted a video online at a very problematic time. But clearly [12:49] he's a journalist trying to do his job and he's an American citizen and we need to work to bring him [12:53] home. Yeah, and Kuwait's supposedly an ally of ours.