James Lindsay joins the Washington Journal to analyze Iran's opaque negotiation stance and the strategic risks of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which transports one-fifth of global oil daily. He warns that relying on junior officials like Steve Wickoff for nuclear talks lacks necessary depth, while military strikes have failed to trigger regime change despite tactical successes. Lindsay emphasizes the economic devastation a strait closure would cause Japan and the northern hemisphere, concluding that without transparency or humility regarding hardliner control, the U.S. faces an uncertain path between deeper conflict or a fragile off-ramp. [Automatically generated summary]
You guys do the most important work for everyone in this country.
I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
You bring these divergent viewpoints and you present both sides of an issue and you allow people to make up their own minds.
I absolutely love C-SPAN.
I love to hear both sides.
I've watch C-SPAN every morning and it is unbiased and you bring in factual information for the callers to understand where they are in their comments.
It's probably the only place that we can hear honest opinion of Americans across the country.
You guys at C-SPAN are doing such a wonderful job of allowing free exchange of ideas without a lot of interruptions.
Thank you, C-SPAN, for being a light in the dark.
James Linzay joining us.
He's with the Council of Foreign Relations.
He's a senior fellow in foreign policy.
He is also the host of the President's Inbox podcast, here to talk about the current news when it comes to Iran.
Good morning to you, sir.
Good morning, Pedro.
Thank you for having me.
When you see the headlines this morning about the supposed negotiations going back and forth with Iran, what goes through your mind?
The words wait and see.
It's not at all clear that we really do have in-depth negotiations going on.
It's not clear who can negotiate on behalf of Iran and what they're willing to give.
And I think in this case and a lot of other things, you can't rush to the end of the movie.
You have to sort of wait to see how things unfold.
Is even negotiating, do you think negotiations are possible at this point?
Continue the ongoing conflict, and how does that complicate things?
Well, negotiations are always possible.
Again, we don't have real good insight into, one, who is running the Islamic Republic of Iran, and number two, what their bottom line is.
And, you know, we look at the war from our vantage point in terms of the tactical success of the U.S. military in being able to hit targets in Iran.
But the other part of the equation is how do the Iranians assess their position?
Are they really beaten back, or do they believe that by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, they have gained the upper hand in this conflict?
And again, that's the hard part that we don't have a lot of transparency into.
If that's the hard part, what are the questions or at least things to consider as we think through these things to determine what the Iranians are communicating?
Well, I think for the administration, the big question is do you go deeper in or do you try to find an off-ramp?
Again, there's sort of the idea that you're in for a penny in for a pound, that it would be more dangerous to take the foot off the gas pedal right now.
On the other hand, there's the old adage that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
And I think the real test of statesmanship is being able to figure out which situation you're in, the one that requires you to soldier on or the one that requires you to find a way out.
When it comes to determining that, the president's frontrunners are his son-in-law and Steve Wickoff.
Are those the right people to lead this, or should there be more activity from the State Department on these things?
Well, that's always the privilege of the president to decide who he wants to have negotiate for him because the president at the end of the day has to rely on, be confident in, the people who are negotiating on his behalf.
Obviously, one of the weaknesses of relying on your son-in-law and on a golfing buddy is that they don't have a great deal of depth in terms of the specifics, particularly regarding the nuclear program.
My sense is that they are, to some extent, drawing on expertise in the State Department and in the Defense Department.
But again, at this point, it's not clear what kind of negotiations you can really have, because again, it's not clear who's running Iran and what their demands are likely to be.
And so we sort of have to, I think, have a great deal of humility and a bit of caution as we sort of try to process the news right now because there's a lot that we probably don't know.
Elaborate on that last point, the humility and caution.
Well, again, I think there's a tendency to sort of want to make predictions about what is happening.
And I think that's a real risky thing here because there's a lot of contingencies here, a lot of things that are interconnected.
And we don't, again, have real good insight into what the Iranians are thinking or who matters in Iran.
Again, going into this war, there was a sense that the use of military force could prompt regime change, that people in Iran would rise up and overthrow their leadership.
We haven't seen any of that so far, in good part because the people don't have arms and the government does.
And while these attacks have killed a number of leaders in Iran, there are more leaders to take their place, and they have weapons and have been able to maintain their control over the people of Iran.
But imagine if all of a sudden there's a division that takes place in Iran, there's a coup, and someone else takes over and is willing to negotiate with the United States.
You go in a very different direction than if hardliners maintain control and simply say, we are not going to bargain with the United States.
Our guest is with us until 10 o'clock.
And if you have questions about the latest concerning Iran, give us a call on the lines, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202748-8002.
You can text us your questions or comments at 202-748-8003.
You mentioned the Strait of Hormuz.
Is that the center point right now?
And what's the important thing to know, or at least the questions to ask about the current operations involving that?
Well, the big question with the Strait of Hormuz is when is it going to reopen?
You're talking about a narrow strait.
It's about 20 miles wide through which one-fifth of the world's oil typically passed on every day.
That's been shut off to a very large extent, and that begins to have big ripple effects.
A number of countries, think Japan, for example, get most or all of their oil out of the Middle East.
They depend upon those shipments.
You cut it off.
All of a sudden, their economies are really damaged.
And again, the ripple effect is broader than that, because if you're buying parts from the Japanese for your own economy and the Japanese are in trouble, all of a sudden you begin to be in trouble.
One of the other things I think we aren't paying enough attention to is the ripple effects that come from higher oil prices and fertilizer prices.
In the northern hemisphere, we're about to enter the planting season.
Most modern agriculture relies heavily on fertilizers.
Global Ripple Effects Of Oil00:00:19
We're going to leave Washington Journal to take you live to UN headquarters in New York City for remarks by Israeli Ambassador Daniel Sarachi was asked directly whether Iran has missiles with a range beyond 2,000 kilometers.
He looked the world in the eye and said, and I quote him directly,