A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
For more about Iran's future, we've called Ali Vaez. He's the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. That's an independent organization that works to prevent conflicts and war. So, Ali, we just heard about President Trump's mixed signals to Iran, deploying warships on one hand, on the other hand, telling reporters that Iran is seriously talking to the U.S. What effect does that have on the regime?
ALI VAEZ: Well, look, there's a lot of uncertainty at this moment, and the regime is - seems prepared for all scenarios. If there is a deal that would meet some of its requirements, it might be willing to strike a deal and buy more time. If the U.S. decides to use military force, it has threatened to retaliate in a disproportionate and harsh manner.
MARTÍNEZ: Considering, though, what President Trump did in Venezuela, does that at all influence Iran's regime in terms of what Trump might be seriously thinking about doing?
VAEZ: Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the supreme leader's security now seems to be much more of a concern for the regime, ever since Israel killed the leader of Hezbollah, Nasrallah, in Beirut in September 2024, and also during the June war between Iran and Israel, when President Trump even threatened to target the supreme leader at that time. So there is security concern. But no, the Venezuela analogy doesn't really apply here...
MARTÍNEZ: OK.
VAEZ: ...Because there were contacts between the Trump administration and the Maduro's regime, different elements of the Maduro's regime, that allowed negotiating some sort of a transition if the regime is beheaded, that the rest of its body could survive. There does not seem to be any kind of negotiation along those lines between Iran and the U.S. at this moment.
MARTÍNEZ: OK. I brought it up only because I know that President Trump brought it up last week when talking about Iran, so I'm wondering if he's thinking, look what I'm capable of if things don't go well with negotiations.
VAEZ: It is true that the president might feel emboldened by the success that he had in Venezuela at a very low cost for the United States. In fact, there are no American fatalities. In this case, I think it is different. I think there is a realization within the administration that there is no low-cost, high-impact military option in the case of Iran. As I said, the Iranians have come to the conclusion that only if they draw blood it would deter the U.S. and Israel from continuing to strike its territory. And this is a regime that is cornered and could act in a reckless way. And I think the administration is aware of that, and that is why it has hesitated, despite the fact that it has amassed significant military capabilities right next door.
MARTÍNEZ: OK. Now, Iran's foreign minister said that the country will not negotiate with the U.S. while under threat and that while it will talk about nuclear capabilities, it won't give up its missiles. How do you see that getting resolved?
VAEZ: Well, look, what some of the mediators are now recommending is that Iran and the U.S. start tackling the nuclear issue first, and then if they could have a deal, maybe tackle missiles or Iran's regional policy or other areas of disagreement. It is hard for me at this moment to see why the Trump administration would agree to those terms because it does appear that the leadership in Washington believes that Iran is in a historic position of weakness, and therefore, there is no reason to make any significant concessions to Iran, but the U.S. can ask for more. Whereas, if you look at it from the perspective of the Iranian regime, the only thing that they deem more perilous than another conflict with the United States is surrendering conflict with the United States, is surrendering to U.S. terms. And that's why it's hard to be optimistic about the prospects of diplomacy, even though there's a lot of regional effort to try to bring both sides together.
MARTÍNEZ: You mentioned how the Trump administration may feel that Iran is at its historic level of weakness. How do you see it? I mean, what do you observe from that?
VAEZ: Look, Iran is certainly weakened, but it is not weak. Those two things are not the same. And this is, again, why the president is hesitating. If he believed that Iran is weak and it's an easy pushover, he would have acted earlier. He would have acted without the need for having so many capabilities to defend its own interests and U.S. allies in the region. So it's not a weak country, but it is certainly a regime that has lost a significant amount of legitimacy and is on the brink. The question is whether the U.S. can engineer some sort of soft landing, whether the military solution would actually grant the regime another lease on life, and whether Iran could collapse into some sort of a failed state with consequences for the U.S. in the region and beyond.
MARTÍNEZ: That's Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group. Thank you very much for your thoughts.
VAEZ: My pleasure. 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.
