A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
For more on negotiations with Iran, Vali Nasr joins me now. He's an expert on Iran at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. So this is not the first time President Trump has announced he's holding off on attacking Iran because of what he frames as promising negotiations, but, Vali, I mean, those threats and those pullbacks, how are they received in Iran?
VALI NASR: The Iranians have been ready for war over the weekend, and they expected that the current stalemate was not - is not tenable and that the United States is likely to go back to war. But I think their - the level of their readiness and the threat that they posed in escalating the war disproportionately, they believe, is what led President Trump to back off.
MARTÍNEZ: So it isn't one of those things where Iran is maybe not taking him seriously anymore because of all the threats and pullbacks.
NASR: Iran does not take him seriously when he says he wants to negotiate.
MARTÍNEZ: OK.
NASR: And Iranians read into all of these things that Washington says that the problem is that the leadership in Iran is divided, that Iran doesn't know what it wants to negotiate, that the United States is not really serious about negotiations and it's not willing to compromise from its maximalist position, and it's actually playing for time and trying to create confusion in Tehran in order to restart the war and catch Iran by surprise.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, one more thing on that because Iran threatened today that if it is attacked, the war will spread, quote, "beyond the region." Does it have that reach to do that?
NASR: Well, it is - we don't know. At least, Iran has surprised the West in many ways during this war, and it may do so again. But I think right now, Iran is trying to be as menacing in its threats because it views this kind of language as a deterrence. They think it already worked over the weekend, that the level of readiness and the fact that they communicated that they will react to any American attack on Iran disproportionately is the reason why their president backed off from attacking. And so for them, it makes sense to keep up this kind of language in order to deter a military attack.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, we heard from a former State Department official warning about this turning into kind of a frozen conflict. What do you think of that idea that it might become a frozen conflict?
NASR: Well, I don't think it can become a frozen conflict in its current format. In other words, the Strait of Hormuz cannot remain closed indefinitely, and the U.S. cannot maintain this blockade indefinitely, not only because of the toll that it's imposing on the global economy and the recession and inflation that it will impose on most of the world, but because even the United States does not have the capability to maintain this level of a blockade indefinitely. However, if the blockades are lifted and there is no agreement, we can have a frozen conflict, but we have to get past this stage that we're in right now.
MARTÍNEZ: It feels like it could go on a long time, though. I mean, how long do you think the blockade could hold up if the U.S. really wanted to hold it up?
NASR: I don't think we're talking months, maybe a month, because I do think that both the strain on the U.S. Navy to sustain it, but also, the strain that it is imposing on vast areas of the global economy, which perhaps a lot of Americans are not quite aware of, makes this situation untenable.
MARTÍNEZ: Now, Vice President JD Vance talks about fractured leadership in Iran and that it's not always clear what the country's negotiating position is. Are you clear on what that is?
NASR: No. I think Iran's negotiating position is quite clear, that they're willing to make compromises on the nuclear deal as well as on opening of the strait provided that the United States is also willing to negotiate in good faith with them. But they also want guarantees that the United States will actually implement the deal that it signs and that President Trump will not walk away from any deal that he signs, as he did in 2018 with the previous nuclear deal. And so I think the Iranian position is quite clear. Yes, there might be disagreements over specifics of particular terms, but they have been in agreement in negotiating with the U.S. even before the war when they met in Geneva. It's the United States that actually is insisting on maximal demands and is demanding that Iran basically surrender, and Iranians are not willing to do that. And, yes, Iranians are debating whether they should continue to engage the U.S., but I think the position is fairly clear.
MARTÍNEZ: Vali Nasr is a scholar of Iranian politics at Johns Hopkins University. Thank you very much for sharing your time.
NASR: Thank you. 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.
