0:00
/
Transcript

Economic chicken with a side of nuclear talks

Why Steven Cook gives the Iran war a shrug emoji 🤷🏻

Seven weeks in, the war with Iran has morphed into an economic game of chicken — with a side order of nuclear negotiation.

Having failed to get Iran to capitulate on the battlefield, the United States is now trying to squeeze Tehran into submission financially. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this week called the naval blockade “the financial equivalent of the bombing campaign.” Iran’s answer was to threaten to shut down trade across the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and Red Sea entirely. Both sides are turning the screws. Neither is blinking. And somehow, in the middle of all this, the two countries are also trying to negotiate a nuclear deal.

I sat down with Steven A. Cook, one of the sharpest Middle East analysts working today, to make sense of the current moment — the collapsed talks in Islamabad, the blockade, the nuclear negotiation that has somehow materialized in the middle of a war about a strait. His bottom line was not reassuring. Trump backed himself into this war convinced Iran would fold in days. When it didn’t fold on the battlefield, he sought negotiations. When those broke down, he escalated.

“This,” Cook told me, “is the most half-assed war ever.” No clear objectives going in. No clear theory of what winning looks like. No clear sense of what the administration is actually willing to settle for. The shrug emoji🤷🏻 he said, is basically his reaction to what the president is thinking.

The problem with the blockade is that it cuts both ways. Yes, it puts economic pressure on Iran — whose economy was already teetering after six weeks of bombardment. But it also keeps the strait closed, which means oil prices stay elevated, which means Americans keep feeling it at the pump. Trump needs a deal before the midterms. Iran knows that. And Tehran has a long history of using negotiations not to reach agreements but to buy time — getting adversaries to ease military pressure in exchange for talks that go nowhere. The new old regime will run the same play.

The nuclear talks, ostensibly the reason the US went to war in the first place, only complicate matters. The U.S. wants a 20-year suspension of enrichment. Iran offered five years. Those positions are far apart. But the deeper problem is that Washington is now asking Tehran for two concessions simultaneously: give up the nuclear program and relinquish control of the strait.

Before this war, the nuclear program was Iran’s primary leverage. Now Iran also controls Hormuz — not hypothetically, but actually, with mines in the water and ships turning back. A negotiated settlement that leaves Iran with any formalized role over the strait puts Tehran in a stronger position than it was on February 28, before the war started. As Cook put it: who would take that deal?

If you value serious foreign policy journalism that cuts through the partisan noise and smart conversations with experts like Steven, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The ceasefire expires April 22. Three aircraft carriers are now in the region and thousands of additional troops are en route to the region. At the same time, Trump is telling Fox Business the war is “very close to over” and gas prices will be down by the midterms.

Maybe. Or maybe this is what a stalemate looks like when one side needs an exit and the other side knows it.

Share

Leave a comment

Thank you Marcie Alexander, David Galinsky, Barbara, Judy, Christopher Grassi, and many others for tuning into my live video with Steven A. Cook! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Elise Labott in the Substack app
Available for iOS and Android

Discussion about this video

User's avatar

Ready for more?