US-Iran ceasefire: Uncertainty over what’s next — This is America

[0:09] America and this is the former Iranian embassy in Washington, a sealed time [0:15] capsule abandoned since the 1979 revolution. Now at this juncture the U.S. [0:21] and Iran are far from re-establishing diplomatic ties but is the ceasefire and [0:26] Trump's suggestion of working together with Iran meaningful steps? I'll be back [0:31] later with more on that but first here's Anna Burst-Francis in our Washington [0:35] studio. Thanks Heidi. Peace through strength the White House says but with [0:41] only a tentative ceasefire in place will peace be achieved through concessions [0:45] or more conflict? Kimberley Halkett is at the White House today and Richard Gaysford [0:50] is live for us at the State Department. The most important two days are ahead [0:56] with negotiations between the United States and Iran due this weekend. [1:00] America hasn't openly published its list of demands but the president and his team [1:05] have been keen to remind the public why the country went to war. It has always [1:11] been the policy of the United States in particular my administration that this [1:17] terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. You know we got regime change we [1:24] do we deal with a much different regime than before we're doing with different [1:27] people. And if we could do something but they have to open it up they have to open [1:31] up the strait of Trump I mean harmless. When Iran counteroffered the 15-point [1:41] American plan with its own list of 10 demands Donald Trump said they were [1:45] workable and reasonable but then his press secretary said the list was thrown [1:50] in the garbage. And the idea that President Trump would ever accept an [1:55] Iranian wish list as a deal is completely absurd. The president will only make a deal [2:01] that serves in the best interests of the United States of America. What are those [2:06] interests? Here's a reminder of where America and Iran lie in terms of [2:09] negotiating a peace deal. Each side's conditions for ending the war have been [2:14] broadly outlined and while Washington's list hasn't been exclusively published it's [2:18] clear there are major differences in demands. U.S. media leaks suggest America is [2:23] open to discussing sanctions relief while Iran is demanding the lifting of some [2:28] sanctions. The U.S. says Tehran must never develop a nuclear weapon and must [2:33] stop the enrichment of uranium. Tehran reportedly demands its nuclear program [2:38] be accepted. The reopening of the strait of Hormuz is also a key U.S. demand. Tehran [2:43] says it needs a guarantee that Iran maintains control over the waterway. The [2:49] U.S. also wants Iran to end its support for the likes of Hezbollah in Lebanon and [2:53] the Houthis in Yemen. But Iran is demanding the U.S. and Israel stop the war on all [2:58] fronts including fighting against those groups which are its regional allies. The [3:03] Vice President J.D. Vance is now the one spearheading those negotiations. For more [3:08] on where the talks will go we're joined by our correspondents Kimberly Halkett at [3:11] the White House and Richard Gaseford at the State Department. Kimberly I'll start [3:15] with you. J.D. Vance has been shoulder-tapped to lead these talks. Why? Well what [3:20] we know from the information coming out of the White House is there is a number [3:25] there are a number of reasons why J.D. Vance has been tapped for this. The first [3:29] is that the U.S. President believes that he has been pivotal given the fact that he [3:34] has been quietly shouldering some of the back-channel discussions between the [3:38] United States, Israel and Iran. And so as a result he is the most likely person to [3:46] lead this endeavor. But also we know that this is a signal that the U.S. [3:51] president is putting an enormous amount of importance on seeing the success of [3:56] these talks. In other words putting J.D. Vance at the helm of the delegation [4:01] elevates this and is a signal or gesture to Iran of the significance. We should [4:07] point out some of the most significant talks between the two nations in decades. [4:12] Now having said that there's also a recognition of a deficit in trust between [4:17] the parties. And so as a result given the fact that the Middle East envoys Jared [4:22] Kushner as well as Steve Witkoff were involved in negotiations that ultimately [4:27] ended up breaking out in military conflict there is a desire to try and reduce the [4:34] lack of trust between the parties by putting someone else in charge. So there [4:38] is an awareness that the former negotiators were more aligned with Israel. [4:42] J.D. Vance is seen as not only being more neutral but also having better decision [4:47] making authority. Well Richard I'll bring you in here when we talk about who gets to [4:51] be in charge or leading these talks. The State Department usually is the one [4:55] responsible for setting political agenda. So where's Marco Rubio in the lead up to [4:59] these talks? Yeah ordinarily Anna you're right you would expect Marco Rubio and the [5:07] State Department to be right at the center of all these events. But the Secretary of State's been pretty quiet recently. We saw him yesterday. [5:14] here at the State Department welcoming Mark Rutter the Secretary General of NATO. But no questions answered at all. Nothing said in front of cameras before that meeting. [5:26] And what we've seen over the last few days absolutely nothing from the Secretary of State on social media since Easter when he talked about Easter and the ability of America to go into Iran and pick up those two pilots. [5:41] So it seems to be taken out of the State Department's hands. Instead we have J.D. Vance as you've been talking about heading off to lead these talks. [5:50] Accompanied by Steve Witkoff who of course is the millionaire property developer friend of Donald Trump employed directly by the White House. [5:58] And Jared Kushner who is Trump's son in law another millionaire and investment banker who's working as a volunteer. So none of them answering to the State Department where you might expect there to be some sort of diplomatic frenzy at the moment. [6:12] They may well be behind the scenes trying to clear up that confusion that J.D. Vance has been talking about certainly to fielding calls from allies trying to get their wants and needs as part of these negotiations. [6:26] Problem is if this top team isn't hearing them Anna you do wonder how successful these negotiations might be on behalf of those allies. [6:33] Richard Gaysford at the State Department Kimberly Halkett at the White House. Thank you both. [6:38] Well Iran's original plan to end the war looks like it had been written by ChatGPT. At least that's what the U.S. Vice President claimed. [6:49] But as both sides head to Islamabad key demands from either party could scupper talks at any point. As Phil Lavelle explains from the State Department. [6:57] A question a lot of people are asking this place the State Department what does that word victory actually mean. Well there's your definition. A success triumph or superiority achieved over an opponent. The final and complete overcoming of a challenge. But is this challenge over. Really. President Trump says it is claiming the U.S. has won a total and complete victory. A sentiment echoed by his defense secretary. [7:25] Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield. A capital V military victory. [7:35] Try telling that to the Iranians who claim they came out on top. Their vice president saying this 40 day war was not merely a military victory but a turning point in changing strategic equations in the region and the world. [7:49] Fact is this is a precarious ceasefire. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance called it a fragile truce. Both sides have their competing demands. The U.S. with its 15 point plan. Iran responding with a 10 point version. Apparently its second attempt. Because. [8:07] The Iranians originally put forward a 10 point plan. The Iranians originally put forward a 10 point plan that was fundamentally unserious, unacceptable and completely discarded. It was literally thrown in the garbage by President Trump and his negotiating team. [8:19] And there are a lot of red lines here. For the U.S. Iran's nuclear ambitions is one of them. Iran has a stockpile of near weapons grade highly enriched uranium. [8:29] And weapons which Americans were told could soon be used to attack them. Iran has always maintained it is not seeking to build a weapon and it is for peaceful purposes. [8:38] Iran's nuclear doctrine has been a peaceful one. And we have always sought and still seek to exercise our rights to benefit from peaceful nuclear energy. [8:54] President Trump now claims that stockpile would be taken care of in a peace deal. [8:59] Iran has a ballistic missile program which Washington wants eliminated. [9:03] Lots of U.S. combat forces are also based in the Middle East. Iran wants them gone. [9:08] Then there is the Strait of Hormuz. That is one of the biggest sticking points. [9:13] 20 percent of global oil and LNG goes through this narrow waterway or it did until Iran blocked it. [9:19] Now Tehran's controlling who goes through and wants them to pay for the privilege. [9:24] It's after cash to rebuild the damage caused by the U.S. and Israel's bombs. [9:29] Plus there are resolutions. There are lots against Iran, the IAEA, the U.N. [9:34] Iran wants them ended along with all sanctions. [9:38] The U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance is due to be at those talks in Islamabad representing the U.S. [9:43] But it won't be straightforward as Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry found out back in 2015 as he worked on the original nuclear deal. [9:52] Pictured deep in thought here in Vienna contemplating America's next move. [9:57] Because so much of this is about strategy and the clock is quite literally counting down day by day as we wait to see if this pause does indeed become permanent. [10:09] Finn Lavelle, Al Jazeera at the State Department. [10:12] So still a way to go to find common ground. [10:16] Joining me today to discuss what that might look like is Victoria Taylor, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran. [10:24] And Kenneth Katzman, a former Iran analyst at the Congressional Research Service. [10:27] Thank you both for joining me today. [10:29] Victoria, will this ceasefire hold? [10:31] I think this is an extremely fragile ceasefire and the way that I view it is not really as a framework for negotiations, but more of an off ramp. [10:41] Of course, within the span of one day on Tuesday, we had President Trump threatening to destroy a civilization and then we moved very quickly to the ceasefire. [10:50] I think there's a lot of complications to reaching a deal and to making this ceasefire stick. [10:56] The 10 points from the Iranians have almost zero overlap with the 15 points originally presented by the United States. [11:03] So I think there's a long road ahead. [11:05] I'm not getting a huge sense of optimism from you then, Kenneth. [11:08] Are you on the same page? [11:10] You're not going to get more optimism from me either. [11:12] But, you know, Iran still has the war did not really change any of Iran's positions. [11:18] Iran is still insisting on being able to enrich uranium. [11:22] They are still refusing to give up the stockpile of enriched 60 percent enriched uranium. [11:28] They are now, according to their version, they're insisting the U.S. basically leave the Middle East, which is not going to happen. [11:36] But there is a there is what gives us potentially cause for optimism is there seems to be a tug of war between hardliners and more pragmatic elements in Iran. [11:48] And that's what produced the ceasefire. [11:50] And I'm seeing evidence of that play out. [11:52] I guess there's a there's a line here, whereas it's it's not just the U.S. versus Iran. [11:58] It's factions within the U.S. administration and within the Iranian leadership as well as to what you concede on and what you will give and take. [12:06] Do you see, Victoria, any realistic demands from Iran that the U.S. is willing to accept, whether we look at list ten point number one, ten point number two, any of the demands that are publicly available? [12:19] Well, I think the the real cause for optimism here is that we did come back for the brink and there was an agreement from both sides to to halt what would have been a very dramatic escalation. [12:29] And I think that's a reflection of domestic political realities in the United States. [12:34] And I think also we're a reflection of the fact that for both Iran and the United States escalating the conflict is unlikely to produce a better outcome for either side. [12:44] In terms of what either side can accept, you know, I think there were negotiations that have occurred throughout the course of this past year on the nuclear program. [12:54] There may be some common ground that could be found there. [12:57] What will be harder is the insistence of Iran to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is a real nonstarter, not only for the United States, but the countries in the Gulf and many other countries around the world. [13:09] And I think also the idea that the United States would suddenly withdraw all of its military forces from the Middle East is not something the U.S. would ever consider. [13:20] Which presumably, Kenneth, Iran knows, right? [13:24] Well, they know, but they feel they're in a strong position because they were able to restrict traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. [13:31] They feel they have Mr. Trump on the run. [13:34] But I think what I argued last time when I was here was they may be underestimating Mr. Trump's resolve. [13:41] Yes, the polls show we shouldn't escalate. Yes, the American people were perhaps against this operation, but I would not underestimate his potential to escalate. [13:51] He does not want to appear to have caved in or be a loser or have blundered badly in this operation. [13:59] And I think there is still a chance he will escalate if he feels he needs to. [14:03] What are then, Victoria, when we talk about that sounds like some uncertainty from Kenneth, what are the unknowns about these talks? [14:10] What specifically should we be looking at and thinking, what does that mean and where does this go? [14:15] Well, I think the primary challenge right now, of course, is Lebanon. [14:19] Is Lebanon part of the ceasefire? Is it not part of the ceasefire? [14:22] Does the Israeli agreement to negotiate actually help deescalate what appears to be another front of this conflict? [14:31] I think another thing that we need to be looking at is whether Iran even agrees to negotiate on some of the issues that have been core priorities for multiple US administrations. [14:40] And that's primarily the the Iranian possession and use of ballistic missiles, Iran's support to the proxies throughout the region. [14:49] And those are issues Iran has never agreed could be part of any negotiation. [14:54] Iran has agreed to come back to the table, perhaps in some respect here, because there is a change in the negotiating team. [15:00] How important, Kenneth, is it that J.D. Vance is spearheading these talks? [15:04] Well, I'm not sure that's necessarily material, but I think, you know, since. [15:08] Why not? Because it is a change. [15:10] Well, it's a change. I mean, he's sort of leading, but Witkoff and Kushner are still there. [15:15] But what I think, I think we're underestimating the degree to which Iran was shaken up by that rescue mission last weekend. [15:23] That was a big humiliation for Iran. [15:26] The United States basically set up an air base 40 miles outside their second most important city. [15:32] And they not only couldn't prevent it, they didn't even know about it. [15:36] And that that was, I think, a big shock that I think contributed to bringing them to the table. [15:41] And I think they may be mistaken if they think Mr. Trump will not use ground intervention if he feels he needs to. [15:48] Yeah. OK. Although that would be a huge step. And the president clearly feels a new strategy is needed when it comes to getting a deal done. [15:56] The deal. Right. How's that moving? Is it OK? The big deal? You see it happening? [16:07] So if it doesn't happen, I'm blaming J.D. Vance. [16:10] If it does happen, I'm taking full credit. No, I think it'll be, I think it has to happen. I think they're desperate. [16:20] Perhaps in jest, but has J.D. Vance been given a bit of a hospital pass in terms of trying to actually negotiate a realistic outcome here, Victoria? [16:29] I mean, I think it's a very difficult deal and it was a difficult deal to achieve even ahead of the war. [16:34] I don't think the terms for the United States dramatically improved, even though the U.S. and Israel can really claim significant military victories. [16:42] But I would say, you know, the inclusion of J.D. Vance as part of the negotiating team is significant. [16:49] And I think it's important signal not only for the United States to send to the vice president, but it's something probably the Iranians also welcome. [16:57] J.D. Vance is known not to be supportive of, you know, a very assertive U.S. military role. [17:04] Reporting suggests he was not particularly in favor of this war. [17:07] And so I think for the Iranians, his inclusion also sends a signal that the U.S. is actually trying to achieve a diplomatic deal. [17:16] Kenneth, that reporting about J.D. Vance's position has gone rather far and wide. [17:20] It is being discussed quite openly. [17:22] Is that also in some ways a message to the American public and maybe to more mainstream Republicans that this is a sense of pulling back a bit and getting things to a more neutral ground and not escalating this conflict? [17:33] Well, I think it's definitely different than having Secretary of State Rubio head the team. [17:38] I mean, he's got a very different, much more interventionist reputation for obvious reasons, particularly in Latin America. [17:46] But even even in Iran, I think he's much more viewed as perhaps willing to see the benefits of escalation. [17:53] Vance obviously has been against getting into a quagmire more appealing, much more to the MAGA base of no long wars, no regime change wars. [18:04] And so that is sending a signal that he might soften the U.S. positions on some on some points. [18:10] Well, J.D. Vance has said that if the Strait of Hormuz isn't reopened, then President Trump will not abide by the terms of the ceasefire. [18:18] What the president has also shown is that we still have clear military, diplomatic and maybe most importantly, we have extraordinary economic leverage. [18:28] So the president has told us not to use those tools. [18:31] He's told us to come to the negotiating table. [18:33] But if the Iranians don't do the exact same thing, they're going to find out that the president United States is not one to mess around. [18:41] Kenneth, I'll come back to you there because we were just discussing it. [18:43] What do you make of that breakdown? Because obviously all those things he listed are tools that you do use in a negotiation as well. [18:49] Well, I think that comment about, you know, do not mess around. [18:53] Mr. Trump does not mess around. [18:55] I think Iran would be wise to listen to that advice. [18:58] And, you know, I think Mr. Trump is speaking today. [19:02] He may announce more U.S. troops going to the region. [19:05] You know, that that would be within his style to ratchet up the pressure as talks are about to begin. [19:11] The problem is still the Strait, though, isn't it, Victoria? [19:14] Yeah, I think the Strait remains an extremely vexing challenge and one that can not be solved militarily with great ease. [19:22] And so I think that's why we also come to a scenario where ultimately in his speech last week, President Trump was basically suggesting that reopening the Straits was not the U.S. problem. [19:34] And in fact, it was a challenge to be solved by other countries that were more reliant upon it. [19:38] Yeah, it has been a mixed message at times. [19:40] Donald Trump's decision, though, to deescalate the war with Iran has U.S. media questioning his strategy and how he brought Iran to the table. [19:48] Was it threats or did he run out of options? Heidi Jo Castro has been canvassing reaction. [19:53] The U.S. media is not buying Trump's claims of total and complete victory over Iran, not on the left nor on the right. [20:02] In fact, almost across the board, they're pointing out the uncertainty of the ceasefire. [20:07] We'll start with the left-leaning MSNOW, which featured this panel discussion shortly after the ceasefire was announced. [20:13] This is a retired four-star Army general who did not mince words on his assessment of Trump. [20:19] He is unhinged and incoherent and dangerous. [20:25] And that whole notion of ending a civilization, which couldn't be done, it was sort of a drama queen kind of pronouncement. [20:33] The Washington Post ran this headline, Trump's apocalyptic threat paused war but fueled debate about his credibility. [20:41] It goes on to report the president's ultimatum drew condemnation across the political spectrum and intensified open debate about his credibility, morality and sanity. [20:52] Now, PBS, that's the Public Broadcasting Service, said much remains unclear after U.S., Israel and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire. [21:03] That uncertainty, also highlighted by the right-leaning Newsmax, also tempered with some praise. [21:10] This is Kurt Volker, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO. [21:13] Let's all be grateful that President Trump did not try to eliminate a civilization. [21:17] I think he made the right call. [21:19] We don't need to go down that road. [21:21] We need to find a solution. [21:23] Second, I'm very glad to see that it appears the Iranians have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. [21:30] And that last bit was said while the Strait of Hormuz appeared to be open, its current status has since shifted. [21:37] Just further evidence of the lack of clarity and fragility of the ceasefire. [21:42] Kenneth, it's that lack of clarity, isn't it? [21:45] We can look back and say, well, we can be glad that things didn't happen. [21:48] But as PBS said, much remains unclear. [21:50] What kind of uncertainty does that? [21:53] Well, what issue does this uncertainty cause then for the rest of the world? [21:56] Well, it causes a lot of uncertainty. [21:59] But, you know, I think there was a lot whether his comment about civilization was is to be taken literally or not. [22:06] There was a lot of unrest even on the Republican side about bombing civilian targets like power plants, like bridges. [22:15] There was a lot of rejection of that strategy. [22:18] But the problem is the president ran out of ways to escalate other than introducing ground troops, which he doesn't want to do. [22:25] So he had to find other ways to escalate. [22:28] And so he threatened these civilian targets, which was likely a mistake because that will alienate the very Iranian people we expect to support us and who have supported the United States. [22:40] NATO head Mark Reuter has been in Washington, D.C., offering alliance help with the conflict. [22:46] Sort of. [22:47] If NATO can help, obviously NATO is then is there. [22:51] There's no no reason not to to be to be helpful. [22:54] Obviously, we will if that is helpful. [22:57] But I think we have to do it step by step because also in NATO that requires an agreement between all the allies to do that. [23:03] And I think here the exact structure is less important than the speed. [23:09] I'll get to that last line in a minute about structure being less important than speed, Victoria. [23:14] But gosh, that was a bit of a token offer, wasn't it? [23:16] If it's helpful or if it's useful, is NATO help any of any use here? [23:21] Well, I think Mark Reuter is walking an extremely careful line here. [23:25] Of course, the president has issued a lot of threats about NATO with a lot of people questioning his commitment to remain in NATO. [23:32] And so it's to the benefit of the secretary general to be as open as possible to the possibility. [23:40] However, we've also seen very strong statements from other European countries, many of whom have been highly critical of the U.S. decision to enter this war. [23:49] And it would be quite difficult not only for NATO to take a firm role in reopening the streets, but also to navigate the politics within the alliance with the other European countries. [24:01] Kenneth, I'll come to you for some final thoughts there on the Strait of Hormuz. [24:04] It is obviously one of the conditions of the ceasefire agreement. [24:07] Mark Reuter there saying the exact structure of reopening would be less important than speed. [24:12] What is going to happen? [24:13] Will that reopen within the next two weeks? [24:15] Well, I think Mr. Trump feels it has to. [24:18] I mean, how can he go to the American people and say this was a wise idea if it leaves the Strait of Hormuz closed? [24:25] He can't argue that. [24:27] And again, as I said, he does not want to be seen as having been blundered. [24:32] And so I think, you know, he's going to have to reopen it one way or the other. [24:36] And that may involve some violence, unfortunately. [24:40] All right, Kenneth Katzman, Victoria Taylor, thank you both for joining me today. [24:43] Well, the ceasefire between the US and Iran has been picked apart online with attacks across Lebanon now dominating the discussion. [24:52] The American public worried the agreement could already be coming undone. [24:55] Alex Baird has been following the debate. [24:57] Well, it all started with news of a ceasefire. [25:01] And now this. [25:03] Lebanon in flames. [25:04] Israeli bombs killing hundreds of civilians. [25:08] Democratic Senator Chris Murphy saying it's hard to believe that a rushed agreement doesn't seem to be holding. [25:15] Former Republican strategist Rick Wilson laying it all at the feet of Trump. [25:20] Trump has f***ed this up so left, right and sideways he has no idea how to escape the trap he's put America in. [25:30] Iran's prime minister saying those Israeli attacks in Lebanon violate the ceasefire, rendering negotiations meaningless. [25:37] Pazeskian reminding the states that Iran's hands are still on the trigger. [25:42] Vice President J.D. Vance responding, well, if you want to let this all fall apart over Lebanon. [25:47] That's ultimately their choice. [25:49] We think that would be dumb, but that's their choice. [25:51] Some saying the White House would rather let Iran close Hormuz again than let Israel stop its killing. [25:56] One of the hosts of the independent political podcast Breaking Point saying, [25:59] What does it say about the U.S. that we're willing to blow up the global economy over Israel's desire to ethically cleanse and annex half of Lebanon? [26:09] The Israeli prime minister going viral for multiple comments. [26:13] This one that the war will continue at any time he chooses. [26:17] We are ready to resume the fighting at any moment. Our finger is on the trigger. [26:24] Bernie Sanders unsurprised and pushing back. [26:27] We cannot allow Israel to continue shaping U.S. military and foreign policy. [26:32] Far right political activist Laura Loomer has the air of the president and she sees this all differently saying, [26:37] Iran is now more legitimized and emboldened than ever before. [26:42] They cannot be negotiated with only destroyed. [26:45] Destruction that the president says he's ready to resume if need be. [26:50] Bigger, better and stronger. [26:52] stronger. [26:53] For Trump, America is back. [26:55] Alex Baird with that report. [26:59] Well, that's all from the team here in Washington, D.C. [27:02] On This Is America, we'll keep following the decisions that shape the U.S. and influence the world. [27:07] If you want to catch up on this episode, check out our YouTube, aljazeera.com. [27:11] That's all for now. [27:12] We'll head back to the team in Doha. [27:14] Thanks for watching.