AILSA CHANG, HOST:
It's a pattern that we keep seeing in the war with Iran. President Trump threatens massive strikes only to later call them off. The latest shift happened just this week, when the president said last Wednesday that the U.S. would be, quote, "hitting them very hard" before pulling back just a few days later. President Trump also said that new talks with Iran would begin today, though, Tehran said it had no plans for direct talks with the U.S. Mona Yacoubian is director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and she joins us now to talk about what all of this means for ending this war with Iran. Welcome.
MONA YACOUBIAN: Thank you.
CHANG: So I want to start with what you make of what happened over the weekend. Is this just more of what we've been seeing from President Trump throughout this conflict, or does it feel different to you in some way?
YACOUBIAN: Well, I think, Ailsa, in a way, we're in a sort of high-stakes version of Groundhog Day. I mean, we have definitely seen this pattern before - the president threatening massive strikes, then, in essence, pulling back, citing diplomatic breakthrough imminent. And then when those talks fail to materialize, he goes back to re-upping a threat of major military intervention.
CHANG: Well, you and I are both using this word pattern - President Trump threatening strikes, only to call them off. Do you think this pattern is hurting his credibility or the U.S.'s credibility with Iran?
YACOUBIAN: So I think we're seeing something very different this time in terms of Tehran's reaction, where they are calling the president out. So for example, noting that there was no prospect of direct talks with the United States and, instead, highlighting that their talks are with Oman. And so I think here you are seeing Iran really, in essence, testing and probing the United States. And each time the U.S. pulls back from a threat, I think for Iran, they sense weakness. This emboldens many of the hardliners in Iran who feel that they can outlast the United States in a conflict.
CHANG: So I was just going to ask you - you do see it as significant that Tehran has said its only negotiations are with Oman. Even though it says it has no plans for direct talks with the U.S., it is saying it is very much openly talking with Oman.
YACOUBIAN: Absolutely. This is part of, I think, a broader strategy by Iran to assert itself in the region. I mean, its insistence on maintaining its control over the Strait of Hormuz, I think, falls into this broader pattern of Iran seeking to project power in an emerging order in the region, an order which, from Iran's perspective, they would like to see the U.S. no longer playing a key role. And I think that's why they're highlighting that their negotiations are with Oman and not with the United States.
CHANG: Can you just remind us, Mona, what is the central disagreement that is preventing a peace deal at this point?
YACOUBIAN: Well, it's - we have to recall that the initial driver for the conflict was Iran's nuclear ambitions. And we are a long way from resolving that question. Right now, as a result of this war and Iran asserting its de facto control over the strait, we're seeing that the fundamental difference between the United States and Iran does revolve around whether or not Iran will continue to assert its control over that strategic body of water. That's just the first step before we get to anything that resembles a broader strategic deal with Iran that addresses its nuclear ambitions. And then whether we do that and it leads to broader peace is really, frankly, a universe away from where we are today.
CHANG: What concessions is Iran looking for ultimately?
YACOUBIAN: Well, again, I think Iran has signaled that it is not willing to relinquish this control over the strait. It serves multiple purposes for Iran. It also serves as an important deterrent. We're sort of seeing that now in this sort of back and forth of stepping up to the brink of a much broader confrontation against Iran but then not following through on that. And it's also an important source of leverage for Iran. So I think Tehran will insist on retaining control over the strait. It's also going to maintain some of its nuclear ambitions, certainly with respect to insisting on the right to enrich, perhaps at low levels. But again, we're very far from negotiations over that set of questions.
CHANG: Well, you mentioned earlier in this interview that the whole point of this in the first place for the U.S. was to address the future of Iran's nuclear program, but it feels like we're so far away from talking about that at this point. I mean, what does it feel like to you?
YACOUBIAN: It's - unfortunately, negotiations on Iran's nuclear program at this point are, at best, a distant prospect. I think that speaks to the complexities of conflict and what happens when we enter into a war. We have no way of knowing or understanding what trajectory the conflict will take. Now we find ourselves essentially wrapped around the axle around the question of the Strait of Hormuz.
CHANG: Mona Yacoubian is director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thank you very much.
YACOUBIAN: Thank you so much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
