Speaker 1: In June, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum
Speaker 1: of understanding to cease hostilities, but it hasn't held. Both
Speaker 1: sides have continued to exchange file the Strait of Hormos
Speaker 1: has hardly reopened. So does Iran want to deal? Joining
Speaker 1: me now is doctor Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle
Speaker 1: East and North Africa Program at Chathamhouse SL I'm welcome.
Speaker 1: So first, will it be fair to say that we're
Speaker 1: sort of fundamentally where we are because the United States
Speaker 1: is looking for a kind of quick exit, almost to
Speaker 1: kind of quick transaction to get the straight open, and
Speaker 1: the Iranians are looking for some kind of long term
Speaker 1: resolution to the broad issue of the hostility between the
Speaker 1: United States and Iran.
Speaker 2: Well. President Trump has always celebrated the fact that he
Speaker 2: is a deal maker, a transactional president, if you will.
Speaker 2: But what we have observed and learned since he's come
Speaker 2: into office, particularly in this second administration, is that the
Speaker 2: quick transactions are not delivering sustainable peace processes or even
Speaker 2: sustainable MOUs and that is what's problematic. The problems of
Speaker 2: the Middle East can't be resolved in a quick transaction.
Speaker 2: They're all interconnected, they're transnational and they require deeper negotiations
Speaker 2: that this administration, but perhaps also the international community today
Speaker 2: is not really prepared to invest in.
Speaker 1: So what kind of a deal does Iran want? What
Speaker 1: does Iran want here?
Speaker 2: I ultimately still believe that Iran does want the bigger deal.
Speaker 2: It does need to unlock sanctions, relief and frozen assets
Speaker 2: and come to a modus vivendi with the United States.
Speaker 2: But I think it recognizes that in this Trump administration
Speaker 2: there are divisions within Trump's circle. The president, of course,
Speaker 2: is increasingly frustrated, and it recognizes that it probably cannot
Speaker 2: get that bigger deal out of this administration. So it's
Speaker 2: seeking to preserve its leverage, and that includes the Strait
Speaker 2: of Hormuz, which is, you know, what it got out
Speaker 2: of the war. Secondly, of course, it still has its
Speaker 2: nuclear program, which is unresolved, of course buried, to use
Speaker 2: President Trump's words. So it needs to maintain this leverage
Speaker 2: and try to achieve something at the negotiating table when
Speaker 2: the time is right, when both parties are actually willing
Speaker 2: to concede in a meaningful.
Speaker 1: Way, can they take the pain? The economy is in
Speaker 1: terrible shape, you know, these bombings must have destroyed it. Further,
Speaker 1: they're being sanctioned, you know, are they? Is it possibly?
Speaker 1: Run is overplaying its hand. It's it's in some sense
Speaker 1: tactically one right. It has. It has achieved what was
Speaker 1: trying to do. Should they not be searching for a
Speaker 1: way out more more.
Speaker 3: Than they are?
Speaker 2: I personally believe they should. I think they are overplaying
Speaker 2: their head. And I think that the longer this war
Speaker 2: goes on, it will boomerang back on them the region.
Speaker 2: Iran's neighbors wholly oppose this war and have worked very
Speaker 2: hard diplomatically to mediate and to find off ramps. And
Speaker 2: the longer this goes on, the more Iran and Iran
Speaker 2: back groups continue to spread the conflict around the region,
Speaker 2: the more there will be a sort of anti Iran
Speaker 2: alliance developing. And I think that's problematic for Iran. But
Speaker 2: the Iranians, to answer your question, don't make existential decisions
Speaker 2: based on macroeconomic indicators. They see this war as do
Speaker 2: or die for them, and they not only need to survive,
Speaker 2: they need to merge from this war with cards in
Speaker 2: their hand that they can play at the negotiating table.
Speaker 2: And they don't want to be cowed by President Trump
Speaker 2: or forced to submit like the Venezuelans were.
Speaker 1: So, if there was one thing you would tell American
Speaker 1: policy makers to understand right now to get out of
Speaker 1: this mess, what would it be?
Speaker 2: I would say that they need to understand their adversary.
Speaker 2: This adversary doesn't only answer to pressure, that incentives inducements,
Speaker 2: and proper negotiations is the way through and the way
Speaker 2: out of this mess. The United States and President Trump
Speaker 2: can be lured into a two week bombing campaign and
Speaker 2: that can damage and destroy Iran's territory further. But Iran
Speaker 2: is willing to absorb those hits and absorb those costs
Speaker 2: if it means that it can still retain its leverage
Speaker 2: at the negotiating table. So I think the President should
Speaker 2: be focusing on the diplomatic track, not just the military truck.
Speaker 4: Right now, appears Iran is not talking directly with the US.
Speaker 4: What can truly be accomplished without direct talks.
Speaker 5: Well, let's go back to the MoU that was signed
Speaker 5: back in June, and I don't have the exact language
Speaker 5: in front of me, but it told Iran to work
Speaker 5: with Oman to develop a mechanism for managing navigation in
Speaker 5: the Strait that would be consistent with international law and
Speaker 5: the sovereign rights.
Speaker 3: Of the coastal states.
Speaker 5: So the MoU does tell Iran to work through Aman
Speaker 5: on this or work through this with Oman. I would
Speaker 5: expect then as it becomes public, both regional allies will
Speaker 5: have an opinion, and as I understand, they're generally favorable
Speaker 5: of whatever it is that it says, and the US
Speaker 5: will have an opinion as well. But at this point
Speaker 5: I'm not shocked that Iran is working through the mechanism
Speaker 5: with Oman. Solely, I think we need to see what
Speaker 5: it says, what the provisions are that are within that agreement.
Speaker 4: Okay, meanwhile, there's threat going back and forth. Right now,
Speaker 4: what do you believe Iran feels about this last chance threat?
Speaker 5: So I think in some I'm not going to say,
Speaker 5: they feel that they called the president's bluff, but the
Speaker 5: President backed off. I think it for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 5: one of them probably being that key allies in the Gulf,
Speaker 5: particularly the Saudis, convinced him that it was time to
Speaker 5: prioritize diplomatic efforts as opposed to additional military action. Even
Speaker 5: though US Central Command has done a lot to destroy
Speaker 5: Iranian naval capability.
Speaker 3: They haven't eliminated.
Speaker 5: The threat in the Strait of the hormones, nor can they,
Speaker 5: and there's no indication that they've moved the needle on
Speaker 5: Iran's strategic calculus, so you know, there might be some
Speaker 5: question on the efficacy of those strikes. The other thing
Speaker 5: I'd say is Iran's activities of the last two weeks
Speaker 5: demonstrating that their range and ability to hold regional energy
Speaker 5: infrastructure at risk goes far beyond the straight support moves,
Speaker 5: whether it's the hu thies down at the Babble Mandeb,
Speaker 5: attacks against ports in the Red Sea, or even as
Speaker 5: far as Egypt.
Speaker 3: I think our golf.
Speaker 5: Allies convinced the President that this is not the time
Speaker 5: to try a very large military campaign against Iran, and
Speaker 5: then again to prioritize those diplomatic efforts.
Speaker 4: Okay, we also have Secretary of Rubio who's saying US
Speaker 4: was involved in the negotiations between Iran and Oman. On
Speaker 4: the straight, Iran has set its goal and talks with
Speaker 4: theman is to set temporary arrangements lasting one to three months,
Speaker 4: where and here's the quote, where Iran is dominant.
Speaker 3: Would the US agree.
Speaker 4: To that do they have a vote or even a
Speaker 4: choice at this point?
Speaker 5: Those are great questions. I think, you know, we need
Speaker 5: to see what it looks like. I think two things
Speaker 5: that three things maybe that we'll look at.
Speaker 3: One is what kind of fee structure, if any?
Speaker 5: Is there is there some voluntary fee as the initial
Speaker 5: reporting said, that would help pay for search and rescue,
Speaker 5: for the cost of administering navigation, for environmental damage or.
Speaker 3: Is it a flat out toll.
Speaker 5: I think that's definitely something that not just the US
Speaker 5: but the rest of the world would oppose. And then
Speaker 5: what kind of coordination will occur between Iran and Oman
Speaker 5: in terms of the channels.
Speaker 3: That they manage.
Speaker 5: Perhaps that's where Iran seeks to be dominant. And then third,
Speaker 5: what will be done in terms of d mining and
Speaker 5: making the channels safe for Iranian for commercial traffic?
Speaker 3: Again in the strait of horror movees. Okay, we have
Speaker 3: about a minute left.
Speaker 4: Iran is threatening to strike the US navy as well
Speaker 4: if this US blockade against Iranian ports continues. What is
Speaker 4: their capacity to do that at this point?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so, you know, they've definitely shown a capacity to
Speaker 5: hit civilian vessels, and that's what has essentially kept the
Speaker 5: straight closed. US naval assets have far more robust protections
Speaker 5: I think in terms of their threat agrants. The US Navy,
Speaker 5: perhaps Iranian thinking, is open for open. If we open
Speaker 5: the straits, we expect you to reopen our ports and
Speaker 5: that and hence a need to lift the blockade. So
Speaker 5: that's another thing we'll need to watch