2:52
Are we going forwards, backwards, or round and round in circles? Peace talks are said to start yet again over Iran. US officials reckon the two sides have agreed to stop the fighting and resume negotiations. Here's President Donald Trump. There'll be a meeting on that tomorrow Doha. And uh they're going to Qatar. They're I think they've already left or they're just about getting ready to leave. So, we'll see how that goes, but we're doing very well on that front. But, the uh uh meeting in Doha is going to be uh perhaps important, perhaps not. We're going to find out. Well, let's talk about the latest developments and work out if this story is moving forward with Matthew Schmit, a political scientist from the University
of New Haven, and Alex Vatanka from the Middle East Institute who specializes on Iran. First, who's going to the talks, why they're back on, and what they'll be about. Alex, Iran denies any talks Tuesday, but says it's sending a delegation of experts to Doha later this week to discuss implementing parts of that memorandum of understanding that Trump signed with Tehran this month. Doesn't sound all that promising. Uh well, we have to really wait and see. It's It's so confusing in terms of what might happen in Doha, if anything. Um you know, I'm assuming that a senior American delegation, maybe Kushner,
would come will show up in Doha. And I frankly have a tough time believing that no Iranian senior official will show up in Doha to meet them. I think that would uh set uh you know, the situation in a bad place, if you will. And Iranians are as interested in this diplomatic track as the Americans are. So, for that reason, I think they would have to show up. Now, what happens after the meeting, that's where we need to sort of really be watching out for. What would they say? What we've seen in recent weeks, whenever they have met, whenever they've sort of communicated, is we hear different versions of what was discussed. And I suspect something like that would could also happen if this meeting does take place this week
in Doha. And that basically would be something along the lines where Iran will say we're still working on getting the memorandum of understanding to be implemented, whereas the US will say things are great and we're moving direction of a final agreement. So, there'll still be much of a daylight between the two of them. But, look, end of the day, this diplomatic track is still alive despite the fact that the ceasefire has been very frail since it was signed back on 17th of June. Matt Trump's top deputies have been briefing Congress on the peace talks this Monday evening. All House and Senate members. That sounds important.
It is important and it's something that the House and the Senate, including on the Republican side, have said should have been happening all along and should have happened more extensively before the decision to go to war was made. And I think the way to think about what's going on right now is that the administration is in crisis mode, right? It's trying to head off its critics and ahead of whatever negotiations are happening tomorrow or later in the week and it's trying to start doing now what it should have been doing earlier. Alex, why are these talks back on at all? Has there been something that's pushed the two sides back together?
Look, fundamentally, Washington and Tehran don't want to go and want to go back to war. I mean, that much is very clear for anybody who's been watching this. They've recognized that. I heard what President Trump has been saying that, you know, they can go back to war at any time should diplomacy fail. But, the reality is really reluctant to do that. He has not tasted what war in this case would mean for the global economy, which means the American economy, and he's very reluctant to go there. So, the reason why I think we've seen uh in the last few days the sort of skirmishes is we had the sort of new shipping corridor essentially open up
over the last few days, more or less closer to the Omani coast, which was essentially from Iran's perspective was depriving Iran of that leverage, its control of the strait, and he hated to see that happen because the last thing the Iranians want to do is show up for these negotiations without having control of the Strait of Hormuz cuz that's their essentially the ace. That's the card that they have to play. They no longer can play the nuclear card since that's damaged by successful American attack. So, I think, you know, the both sides want to go back into these talks. Both sides are serious, but I suspect it's going to be a very, uh, you know, rough ride ahead even if they're succeeding in
the in these talks. But, Alex, what do you make of the report that the US is considering moving Gulf bases hit by Iran westward, including to Israel? Yeah, I mean, that's going to be a more longer-term strategic sort of reorientation of military posture, if you will, in the region. That's not going to be something that's going to happen overnight. Remember, United States military buildup has taken since the end of Second World War to be what it is today. You're not going to undo that quickly. Uh, but surely this war and Iran's ability to retaliate hitting hundreds of American assets, including very expensive platforms like aircraft,
so on, has given reason for the for Pentagon to think about the best way of, you know, being militarily positioned in the region. Is the Gulf too close geographically to Iran? Is Israel better protected? I mean, these things are obviously being deliberated as we speak in the Pentagon as a result of the war, but nothing major, I suspect, will happen in terms of actually shifting military assets out of some of these countries like Kuwait, like Bahrain. I mean, the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is not going to move overnight anywhere else. Although in terms of operations, obviously, uh, they could be doing a lot of that work from, say, Florida where CENTCOM headquarters are and so forth. So, a lot of thinking
going on, but nothing specific as far as I can see can be expected in the short term. And Alex, when you say it's important what is said after these talks and that we should be listening in, what about the content itself of the the talks? Are these peace negotiations or is it more of a tender for managing the Strait of Hormuz? To begin with, it's about the Strait of Hormuz. Really, to begin because the Iranians don't want to give up the sort of what they call their sovereignty. They're starting to sort of refer to the Strait of Hormuz as sovereign Iranian territory. Obviously, a good part of the world disagrees with that, but that's Iran's position. And for the question that becomes from President
Trump's point of view, does he want to push Iran on that? Does he is he willing to perhaps even restart the war to prove Iran wrong on that point or is the United States happy to see the Iranians essentially, you know, charge some kind of a fee, if you will, or at least symbolically claimed a sovereignty as long as, from an American point of view, the global economy starts going back to normal. That could be Donald Trump's bottom line and that suspect that's what the Iranians are banking on. So, would you say we're actually going forwards in these talks or are we going backwards? I mean, there's this shift of focus from nuclear to shipping and a deal that many say is extremely vague.
You know, you know, you'd really have to be a lawyer. If you look at the 14 points of the memorandum of understanding that was signed because so much of that could be, you know, up for interpretation depending how you look at it. But look, I think my fundamental view on this is that the US and Iran do not want to see this war start in a major way. I look at the Iranian side, I a pretty much consensus to end this war, but they think they want something out of it. They feel that they paid a very heavy price. What they would say is standing up to the United States for 40 days. They want something back in return that's tangible. They want frozen assets being given back to them. They want
sanctions relief. They want the sort of lifting of the blockade and Iranian ports made into a reality and so forth. So, they want a lot. The question is what are they willing to give back to the United States from the other point of view cuz obviously that's how successful negotiations will have to be carried out, a give and take. Matt, what's your take? Uh I think uh I agree. It's about the Strait of Hormuz and I think the idea is now that Iran knows it can control it. It knows it has that lever point no matter what happens, uh you know, with the war, with the peace negotiation. I
think the Trump administration knows that, too. They're trying to shift the narrative to talk about uh nuclear materials uh instead because they can do something about that or they think they can do something about that, but they can't do a lot to wrest back uh this sort of, you know, discovery that Iran can uh can lever up or down the global economy uh by changing what it's doing in the Strait of Hormuz. Well, let's talk more about the memorandum now, the political storm in the US as well and public opinion there. Matt, this question goes to you.
Republicans and Democrats have called for more transparency about this 14-point agreement inked on June 18. Are they asking for too much if you know what I mean? No, they're asking for exactly what anybody should get, which is the transparency of this document, right? The administration is signing this document. It's promising things to the public and in a democracy needs to tell the public and the public's representatives in Congress what exactly it's agreeing to. But how do you get transparency out of something so murky? You simply tell it is. You say this is what went on in negotiations and this is how we're interpreting the words on the piece of paper.
Uh this is how we think Iran is interpreting the words on the piece of paper. And I think most importantly, you say the strategic situation is we've now created an environment where Iran has this lever point over the Strait of Hormuz. And unless we decide to go in and take that away from Iran, we're going to have to live with it. And you know, and Congress is going to have to decide what to do with that fact. Do you agree with uh Vice President J.D. Vance who uh recently uh in conjunction with this memorandum said, "We've fundamentally transformed the Middle East."
They have fundamentally transformed the Middle East, but I don't think in the way that Vice President Vance was suggesting. They've transformed it in the way that the nuclear material is actually the less important part of uh of this negotiation. And what's more important, you said that Iran has learned that all it has to do is attack enough shipping or threaten to attack enough shipping to drive Lloyd's of London insurance prices up and that it will have an effect on the global economy and on the US economy and on US politics. Alex, how do you think Tehran views the memorandum? Well, I mean, their official talking point is that this is a win for the Iranians uh and there is some pushback from some marginal hardline corners who
are warning against what they say in Persian, you know, don't give away the diamond in this case diamond being the Strait of Hormuz for candy. Things like, you know, $6 billion Iranian assets being uh given back to Iran that is right now sitting in a Qatari uh bank. So, you know, there is some of that debate going on in Iran, but overall, I think the Iranian regime understands that they uh they were essentially devastated in so many ways during the 12-day war of last year, the 40-day war of this year, and another round of conflict is a huge risk for them to take. But, they feel fundamentally that they see in Donald Trump someone who has now tried the military option, didn't
like it, didn't work for him. He's reluctant to do it. But, even if he does go back to another round of conflict, the Iranian regime's perspective on this is that he's not going to send the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of troops that it would require for the United States to actually control the Strait of Hormuz. Because controlling the Strait of Hormuz means occupying the country of Iran, a country the size of Alaska, three times the size of France. Donald Trump, from Iran's perspective, is never going to do that. Therefore, they this regime is essentially thinking that it has time on its side. Obviously, it's coming at a huge cost for the Iranian people, for the region. But, here you have it. There is an
Iranian regime right now that feels that time is on its side, and it's it's gambling, if you will, in that matter. Now that facing the Trump team, maybe in Doha, but surely there will be more rounds of talk coming up. What do you make of the Ayatollah's warning Sunday that legal cases must be pursued against the US and Israel over child killings and war crimes in Iran? Look, so much of this is about domestic politics in Iran. You have to sort of put yourself in their shoes, if you will.
They consider these the American Israeli attack on Iran as, you know, unprovoked, illegal, leading to the death of thousands of Iranians, including the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who hasn't yet been buried, by the way. So, they're saying, you know, it's it's all fine to talk about sitting down and smiling and shaking hands with the Americans. But, the fact is this what was done to Iran was unjust. So, if you look at it that way, and that's how they presented inside of Iran, it's really hard for them to, for example, show up in a hotel room in Geneva and be seen smiling with Vice President Pence or any other American official for that matter. So, while they do want to have a diplomatic solution to this, they are extremely, [snorts]
as a regime that has a spent about a half a century anti-Americanism, extremely sensitive to that question of seeming to be weak, essentially, to give in to the Americans, the same Americans that killed the rebel supreme leader and so forth. So, as a regime, they have to walk this very fine line. Prevent war, but not look like they succumb to American pressure, or certainly not give the Americans any freebies. And let's talk domestic politics in the US, Matt. What sort of political storm is brewing over the war and all the so-called deal making? Americans don't vote on foreign policy, but they do vote on economics. And when you engage in a war that drives the price of oil up to a $126 a barrel, it's going to have an effect on economics.
And if you look now, the price of oil is back to where it was roughly before the war started, but the price of gasoline is still roughly a dollar higher. And that price on US gasoline is lagging, and it's going to continue to affect the American consumer and the American voter well into the midterm voting period and possibly beyond because it's difficult to get all of these systems back working again like they were, you know, a year ago. And so, that's really what's going to drive the American political landscape going into November. Well, let's just take a look at some of the figures. Americans have been against this war from the very beginning. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll less than a week ago
confirmed 61% either somewhat or strongly disapprove of how President Trump is handling the war in Iran. Not even a third somewhat or strongly approve, and just 18% of Americans believe the preliminary agreement between the US and Iran will lead to lasting peace between the two countries. The vast majority are unconvinced. Matt, what's that mean for Trump? It means that when you look at polling numbers in the United States, you shouldn't ever look at national polling numbers. You should look at polling numbers broken down by voting districts. Uh in this case for the midterms by state or by congressional districts. And you have to understand the way the American system works, and what you'll find is that uh that voters in those
districts that support Donald Trump still very much, 73 75% of them support the war and approve of the way Donald Trump is handling that. So, the outcome in those districts is not going to change in the midterm. And the question really turns on even more arcane things in the American system about how we're redrawing those districts. But that's really what you have to look at is what are Republicans in Republican districts saying? Okay, well even uh Trump posted there may come a point when we're no longer able to be reasonable, and we'll be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist. Now, of
course those are existential threats again from Trump, which amount to or would amount to genocide. Alex, what are your final thoughts uh given that statement? Look, President Trump from get-go didn't really formulate a clear strategy here. We have been all over the place. I mean, he started with regime change, and it now is about reopening the Strait of Hormuz. So, it's really hard to sort of uh essentially take Donald Trump seriously in terms of what his end mission is. It seems to be the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz right now. And if that's what he wants, um then that to me suggests that actually the Iranians
are playing their cards pretty well. They feel that time is on their hand. Closer we get to November, uh, the, you know, more pressure Trump will be under, more likely he's is he is going to be in terms of meeting some of those Iranian demands. But, you know, some of this goes back to the lack of clarity cuz that lack of clarity, and the fact that he didn't get the American public behind him when he started this war, sort of threw a surprise at him, uh, has been at least alerting Tehran to say, "Well, he's on thin ice. He's not going to be able to stay the long-term course here." And that gives Iran this reason to, if you will, delay, uh, ask for more in negotiations than otherwise would have been the case.
And Matt, what do you think? Can all this be solved in the next 6 weeks, the deadline set down in the memorandum? No, uh, absolutely not. And that's what the administration is trying to deal with right now by sending his representatives up to Congress, by trying to shape the narrative going in to the election. It's trying to prepare the electorate for the fact that those gas prices aren't coming down. It's trying to prepare the electorate for, uh, in competitive races for the Democrats saying, "The reason that you can't pay your bills is because Trump started a war in Iran." Um, and so that's what he's trying to do right now. And as we've seen, when we look out, uh, at the landscape, right? The
Republican Party is in some degree of trouble right now. And what they're trying to do is get around that by restructuring, uh, how the vote physically takes place, what those districts look like. Um, and we'll we'll see what happens. But this is clearly the albatross around the president's neck and around the Republican Party's neck right now. Matt and Alex, thank you so much for your time and for your insights tonight. A pleasure. And what do you think? What's the solution for peace in the Middle East? Let us know. I'm Ben Fazulin. I'll see you again very soon.
