Adam Weinstein analyzes the Pentagon's contradictory framing of a ceasefire in Iran as both a victory and an industrial defeat, highlighting the administration's inconsistent support for the Iranian people versus the regime. He notes that while the Trump administration seeks to sell a defanged Iran, Tehran prioritizes infrastructure funding and securing leverage over the Strait of Hormuz via a potential toll booth system to deter future attacks. Ultimately, Weinstein argues that without third-party guaractors like Russia or China, this strategic leverage remains crucial for preventing escalation, even as negotiations through Pakistani mediators conclude without a clear end state. [Automatically generated summary]
My reaction is they're trying to, I don't want to say spin because that's too strong of a word, but they're trying to sell this ceasefire in the last month of operations in Iran as a win while simultaneously claiming that they destroyed Iran's industrial capacity, but they're also standing with the Iranian people.
But at the same time, it made sense to allow the regime to remain.
And the deal that is, I guess, going to be negotiated, we've seen the 10-point deal, the 10 points asked for by Iran.
We've seen the 15 points asked for by the Trump administration.
They're very far apart.
So where do you see this kind of shaking out?
Is there a middle ground?
What do you expect out of a deal, if there is one?
unidentified
Well, I think the most important thing to the Trump administration is the deal needs to allow for face saving and needs to allow the Trump administration to sell this war as a success at home, that in some way they made the Middle East more peaceful and they defanged the Iranian regime.
That's the kind of language they like to use.
I think for the Iranians, what's most important is they need to have money to rebuild the infrastructure that was just destroyed, and they want to have some kind of assurance that this kind of war won't happen again.
And so for the Iranians, the most important thing is some sort of leverage over the Strait of Hermuz and possibly a toll booth in which they can collect money through the ships that pass through, use that to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed and also enrich their regime, and also retain leverage over that strait so that if the United States or Israel decides to conduct attacks again, we're just going to repeat the same cycle.
And the Israelis and the Americans know that.
I think that's what the Iranians want.
I don't think the Iranians trust a third-party guarantor.
And I don't think countries like Russia or China or Pakistan are interested in playing that role.
So the only leverage the Iranians really have is the Strait of Hermuz.
So when you say operating it as a toll booth, what kind of a precedent do you think this could set for other waterways in the world and commercial shipping through those waterways?