Can Trump’s blockade break Iran’s grip on Strait of Hormuz?

Summary

---

Iran: The Latest – Can Trump’s Blockade Break Iran’s Grip on Strait of Hormuz?

The Telegraph | April 13, 2026

Hosts: Roland Oliphant & Venetia Rainey
Guest: Adrian Blomfield (Senior Foreign Correspondent)

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines the dramatic escalation in the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, focusing on President Trump’s announcement of a total blockade of Iranian exports and imports through the vital Strait of Hormuz. The hosts explore whether Trump’s strategy can succeed, review the historical precedents for such blockades, and analyze the fallout from the first direct US-Iran peace talks since 1979, which failed after a 21-hour session. The episode also covers the ongoing violence in Israel and Lebanon, regional implications, and the increasingly tense role of international diplomacy.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Conflict Landscape: Israel, Lebanon and the Ongoing War

• Escalation Despite Ceasefires
  • Despite a recent ceasefire, fighting continues on the Israel-Lebanon border: Hezbollah is launching rocket attacks on northern Israel, while Israel expands ground operations in southern Lebanon.
  • Death toll in Lebanon exceeds 2,000, including about 400 Hezbollah fighters since March 2. Twelve Israeli soldiers have been killed in southern Lebanon. (02:26)
• Speeches and Debates in Israel
  • Hezbollah’s Leader: Naim Qassem delivers a defiant speech vowing to “fight on.”
  • Israeli PM Netanyahu: In a televised address, Netanyahu claims “historic achievements” against Iran and its proxies, asserting, “We crushed the nuclear program, we crushed the missiles and we crushed the regime.” (03:52, Venetia paraphrasing Netanyahu)
  • Widespread internal debate in Israel about the ceasefire's merits and whether war aims have been achieved.
• Historic Peace Negotiations Initiated
  • For the first time, Israel and Lebanon prepare for direct peace talks, with ambassadors communicating—a rare event given no formal diplomatic relations exist.

---

2. International and Religious Reaction: The Vatican-Weighs In

• Papal Critique of Conflict
  • Pope Leo XIV (mistakenly referred to as “Louis XIV”) delivers a pointed message condemning war, power displays, and “idolatry of self and money.”

    “Enough of the idolatry of self and money, enough of the display of power, enough of war. True strength is shown in serving life.” (05:28, Venetia quoting the Pope’s statement)

  • Trump responds combatively, attacking the Pope’s positions on nuclear weapons and US foreign policy:

    “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected in a landslide to do. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” (05:53, Venetia paraphrasing Trump’s online statement)

  • Trump posts an AI image of himself depicted as Jesus blessing an elderly man, underscoring his theatrical style.
  • Pope Leo responds:

    “I’m not a politician. I’ve got no intention to debate with Trump. The message is the same: to promote peace.” (06:33, Venetia reporting on Vatican reply)

---

3. Blockades: History, Strategy, and Feasibility

• Historical Look at Naval Blockades
  • Previous Examples:
    • Union blockade of the Confederacy (American Civil War)
    • Royal Navy blockades of Germany (WWI and WWII)—noting the WWI blockade’s immense impact but also the time (4 years) and suffering required for success.
    • Iran Angle: In 1952, the Royal Navy tried to block Iranian oil exports after the Mossadegh government nationalized British oil facilities, but blockade alone failed to induce policy change, leading to the 1953 coup.
  • Effectiveness:

    “Blockades can be effective, but they’re often not watertight and…can take years or have to be in conjunction with many other measures to have the impact that is sought.” (07:36, Roland)

• Trump’s Blockade: Can It Work?
  • Trump’s new order: total US blockade of Iranian imports/exports, especially oil, via the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Other options “on the table,” including heavy bombing—Trump claims:

    “I could take out Iran in one day. I could take down in one, in one hour... I’d rather not do that. But I do believe they’re going to come to the table on this because nobody can be so stupid as to say that we want to have nuclear weapons. And they have no cards. They have no cards whatsoever.” (10:09, Trump on Fox News soundbite)

---

4. Why the Peace Talks Failed

• First Direct Talks in Decades
  • First US-Iran face-to-face diplomacy since 1979 took place in Islamabad. Each side sent “serious experts and diplomats,” signaling intent to negotiate realistically. (13:26-14:30, Adrian Blomfield)
  • US Delegation led by JD Vance (selected for multiple reasons: his skepticism, his trustworthiness, and his ability for “owning” outcomes for the Trump administration).

    “If things go wrong, I blame JD Vance. If things go right, I take the credit.” (14:11, Trump joking as reported by Adrian)

  • 21-hour negotiations, optimism briefly rising. But suddenly, after dawn, JD Vance ends talks, stating no agreement was reached:

    “We have not reached an agreement…That’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are…They have chosen not to accept our terms.” (16:07, JD Vance clip)

  • Iran’s take (FM Abbas al-Raghji):

    “Intensive talks…in good faith…But when just inches away…we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade.” (16:41, Venetia quoting Iranian post on X)

• Points of Contention:
  • Sticking points were:
    1. Nuclear Enrichment
    2. Strait of Hormuz Control
    3. Release of Frozen Assets—specifically $6 billion in oil revenues, supposed to be released as part of the 2023 prisoner swap but now denied by the US.
  • Lebanon, surprisingly, was not central to the failed talks—may have been a performative issue for leverage. (17:10-18:55, Adrian)

---

5. Possible Next Steps & Scenarios

• Three Outcomes for Negotiations:

  1. Flourishing: Talks are a negotiation tactic; may resume if Iran offers more.
  2. Floundering: Both sides stuck, but may keep extending ceasefire to avoid war.
  3. Foundering: Trump’s blockade is first in a new escalation; war could return soon.

  “Which of those three outcomes is clear is too soon to tell.” (19:55, Adrian)

• Trump’s 'Deadlines' Rarely Firm:

  • Trump has a record of shifting or extending deadlines (e.g., for striking infrastructure), so this blockading deadline could be more political leverage than firm ultimatum.

    “What a deadline is for Mr. Trump is not what a deadline is for me as a newspaper journalist… I don’t necessarily think I would hold too much credence in that.” (22:04, Adrian)

---

6. Blockade in Practice: Legal, Diplomatic, and Economic Factors

• US Navy Moves

  • Two US warships (USS Frankie Peterson and USS Michael Murphy) sailed through the Strait of Hormuz for the first time since the war began, with responders switched on as a clear signal to Iran. (29:25, Venetia)
  • CENTCOM plans to ramp up efforts to clear mines and establish the strait’s international status; possibility of allied support with British mine-sweeping capabilities.
  • Significance: Until now, US maritime assets stayed far from the strait to avoid high-profile losses.

• Legal and Practical Complications

  • During the war, US assets were occupied with direct conflict to impose a blockade.
  • International maritime law complications: Iran argues “innocent passage” per UNCLOS (which Iran hasn’t signed); US risks similar legality issues with a blockade. (28:10, Adrian)
  • Blockade efficacy questions: Could Trump order the Navy to intercept all vessels, even Chinese-flagged ships?

    “If it’s a Chinese flagged vessel, is the US Navy really going to risk a confrontation with that? That remains to be seen.” (24:26, Adrian)

• Effect on Iran and the World

  • Severe economic fallout looms for Iran: With oil exports accounting for at least 15% of GDP, a maintained blockade could be devastating for jobs and the wider economy.
  • Oil prices have surged over $100 per barrel.

    “The Iranian economy is in dire straits… There is no sign at the moment that the Iranian regime is going to back down.” (24:26, Adrian)

  • Economic pressure on regimes rarely leads to quick capitulation; often populations suffer most.

---

7. International Response and Multilateral Diplomacy

• French and British Diplomacy
  • Macron announces a conference (with Britain) to plan a “peaceful multinational mission” to restore freedom of navigation in the strait.
• European/NATO Partners Reluctant to Join Blockade
  • Allies may assist with mine-removal, but there’s little appetite in Europe for direct participation in a US-led blockade.

    “There’s enormous pressure on NATO… But there are those who say that behind the scenes things may still be in the works and this negotiating tract is not yet over yet.” (32:15, Adrian)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Trump’s Blockade Plan:

  “Trump is trying to break that particular piece of the puzzle with his own blockade. And we’re going to see where that goes because it’s now a game of chicken.” (01:04, Adrian Blomfield)

• On US-Iran Talks:

  “It was a very tight ship that JD Vance ran… If things go wrong, I blame JD Vance. If things go right, I take the credit.” (14:11, Adrian quoting Trump’s jest)

• On Failure of Peace Talks:

  “We have been at it now for 21 hours and we’ve had a number of substantive discussions…The bad news is we have not reached an agreement…We’ve made clear what our red lines are.” (16:07, JD Vance clip)

• On Legal and Diplomatic Risks of Blockade:

  “If the US imposes its own blockade, it potentially faces accusations that it itself is in breach of international law. And it certainly undermines the argument that Donald Trump has been trying to make.” (28:10, Adrian)

• On Iranian Leverage:

  “It has replaced its weapon of, or its desire for a weapon of mass destruction with a weapon of mass disruption, as the joke goes.” (22:04, Adrian)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:04] – Trump’s blockade announcement; “game of chicken” begins
• [02:26] – Overview of fighting in Israel-Lebanon, regional death tolls
• [05:28] – Vatican’s intervention and fallout with Trump
• [07:36] – Historical blockades and their relevance
• [10:09] – Trump’s Fox News threat: "I could take out Iran in one day..."
• [13:26] – Lead into peace talks recap and analysis
• [16:07] – JD Vance statement ending talks
• [17:10] – Why talks failed: nuclear, Strait of Hormuz, frozen assets
• [19:55] – Possible scenarios for emerging from deadlock
• [22:04] – On Trump deadlines and leverage
• [24:26] – The practicalities, risks, and economics of the blockade
• [29:25] – US warships’ passage through the Strait of Hormuz; mine-clearing
• [32:15] – European/NATO involvement and prospects
• [34:19] – Adrian’s conclusion, split-screen moment of talks/casual Trump diplomacy

---

Conclusion

This episode thoroughly dissects President Trump’s escalation in the US-Iran conflict through a high-stakes blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. While the solution seems militarily feasible, the hosts and guest expert probe its strategic risks, historical context, legal complexities, and likely fallout for Iran's population. The peace process remains stalled after unsuccessful face-to-face talks, and as diplomatic efforts hang in the balance, the world watches to see who will “blink” in this critical standoff. Trump’s unpredictability, the suffering in Iran, and a region on the edge of broader war all set the scene for a pivotal, tense, and uncertain next chapter.

---

Transcript

[Mary]

The telegraph.

[Progressive Insurance Ad]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Monday.com Ad]

Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth. Feel the sensation of an AI work platform, so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless, limitless, limitless. Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.comstart for free and finally breathe.

[Adrian Blomfield]

Trump is trying to break that particular piece of the puzzle with his own blockade. And we're going to see where that goes because it's now a game of chicken.

[Donald Trump]

Short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.

[Mary]

Today, President Trump says Iran's supreme leader,

[Courtney]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the.

[Progressive Insurance Ad]

The Pentagon is weighing a takeover of that island as a way to force the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran begged for this ceasefire and we all know it.

[Roland Oliphant]

Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? Come on. I'm Roland Oliphant.

[Venetia Rainey]

And I'm Venetia Rainey.

[Roland Oliphant]

And this is Iran. The Latest. It's Monday 13th April, 2026. It's the 45th day of the war and on today's episode, we'll be looking at the peace talks over the weekend. The first ever face to face talks between the United States and the Islamic Republic. They lasted 21 hours. Why did they go wrong and what happens next? Plus, Donald Trump has announced a blockade of any Iranian imports or exports of oil or anything else for that matter, via the Strait of Hormuz. Can it work and has it been tried before? But first, some updates. Venetia, what have you got for us?

[Venetia Rainey]

Well, welcome back, Roland. Nice to be back. Podcasting again together briefly. Although I'm going to be off for the rest of the week, so I thought we could start with Israel and Lebanon. That's been the theater of war that has seen the most activity over the last few days. Since we've had the ceasefire announced last Wednesday, fighting is ongoing. Hezbollah has been firing rockets on northern Israel and Israel has been striking and expanding its ground operations in southern Lebanon. The death toll in Lebanon is now over 2,000. And I saw an interesting detail that Sources familiar with Hezbollah Reuters that that includes around 400 fighters from Hezbollah that have been killed since March 2. Twelve Israeli soldiers have died in southern Lebanon. Those are the total death tolls since the beginning of this war. We had a couple of speeches from various leaders over the weekend. Naim Qassem, the head of Hezbollah, gave a very defiant speech on Friday night. We will fight on, as you would expect. And then Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime Minister, gave a 13 minute address on Saturday night and he told the Israeli public that the battle is not yet over. He also gave a broader speech about Israel's historic achievements over he pointed at a map and talked about all the degradation and damage that had been done to Iran's proxies across the region. I just wanted to mention that because I know you've come back to this repeatedly, Roland. This idea that Israel thinks it's reshaping the region. He says this is a historic change. We crushed the nuclear program, we crushed the missiles and we crushed the regime. There are massive achievements here. This is him talking about the war in Iran. And as our listeners have heard, there's been a lot of disagreement in Israel about whether this ceasefire is a good thing for Israel. They don't feel like they've achieved all of their war goals. They didn't want this war to end. Now, as we were discussing last week, they were very much ready for expanding further into Lebanon. And that does look like it will continue now. But we also have a wild card in that there are supposed to be peace talks between the Israelis and the Lebanese this week. Also historic. These countries do not have diplomatic relations. This is very unusual. Israel's ambassador to the United States held his first ever phone call with his Lebanese counterpart over the weekend and we're expecting formal peace negotiations tomorrow. Israel's refused to discuss a ceasefire with Hezbollah, but it is dealing with the Lebanese government and is trying to see if there's some kind of ceasefire they can arrange there. And we heard Donald Trump speaking to NBC News over the weekend, a confirmation that the Americans have been putting pressure on the Israelis not to wind down their war, which Netanyahu clearly didn't want to do, but to reduce hostilities. So they haven't been bombing Beirut. Donald Trump told NBC I spoke with Bibi and he's going to low key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low key. So clearly a reduction of violence in Lebanon. But Israel is very much still going ahead with its operation to establish a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon to deal with Its Hezbollah problem.

[Roland Oliphant]

I've checked the wires as we speak. It seems like the Iranian US Ceasefire is holding for the time being. As far as I can make out so far, still shaky, still relatively quiet. I wanted to ask you also, Venetia, because I know you've been looking at this. You mentioned it before we came on air. The Vatican, of all of the countries in the world, has somehow become embroiled in the conflict. Could you explain to us just how on earth that happened?

[Venetia Rainey]

Yeah. So Pope Louis XIV came out over the weekend and he didn't name Trump or any country or any particular war. But his comments have been read as a very strong condemnation of the conflict and of the Trump administration. He said, enough of the idolatry of self and money, enough of the display of power, enough of war. True strength is shown in serving life. He also said that prayer for peace is a bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive. Now, as I said, he didn't mention Trump specifically, but Trump very much took it as an affront to him and he put out one of his posts accusing Leo of being weak on crime, weak on nuclear weapons, weapons. He added, I don't want a Pope who thinks it's okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't want a Pope who thinks it's terrible that America attacked Venezuela. And I don't want a pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I'm doing exactly what I was elected in a landslide to do. If I wasn't in the White House, Leo wouldn't be in the Vatican. And shortly after this, Trump posted an AI generated image of him portrayed as Jesus blessing an elderly man on a bed, while a nurse and soldier gaze up at him in awe. So, a very Trumpian statement. We've now had the Pope coming back this morning, and he did name Trump. This time. He said he had a simple message for reporters. I'm not a politician. I've got no intention to debate with Trump. The message is the same to promote peace.

[Roland Oliphant]

On that topic of whether Donald Trump has any business still claiming credit for the election of an American Pope, I would refer listeners back to the battle lines episode we did on the Conclave when he became Pope, with the Telegraph's own Tim Stanley, who gave us a fascinating behind the scenes kind of description of how popes are chosen and whether or not politics, other governments, particularly the White House, would have any kind of influence in that whatsoever. So, please do go to our YouTube page. Search that one up and you'll get some very interesting background on the relationship between this Pope and the current American government.

[Venetia Rainey]

We'll put a link to that in the show. Notes Roland before we get onto our main interview with Adrian Blomfield, our special foreign correspondent, who's right now in Oman, we've been looking at the historical precedence of a blockade, and this is the big deadline looming over today. This blockade on a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. What have you learned?

[Roland Oliphant]

Naval blockades, they've been tried multiple times over the centuries. They can work. The Union did it against the Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Royal Navy blockaded Germany twice, really? Once during the First World War, which had a profound impact on Germany's economy and probably contributed eventually to the German defeat. During the Second World War, of course, the Germans attempted a U boat blockade of Britain, while Britain tried to blockade German European ports. But specifically in the Iranian case, the Royal Navy itself attempted a similar blockade of specifically of Iranian oil exports. Donald Trump seems to be speaking much more widely than this. This was in 1952 when the Mossadegh government nationalized British oil facilities in Iran. It caused a huge crisis. This was enforced by the Royal Navy, essentially seizing control of one ship called the Rosemary and impounding it in Aden, which was then still under British control. That action was more or less enough to dissuade others from getting through. And the blockade lasted pretty much unimpeded, except for one Japanese blockade runner, which became a CORS celebrity when they got through and brought oil back to Japan in 1953 while this was happening. Apart from that incident, the blockade more or less held, but it didn't get Mossadegh's government to change course. And of course, as student of Iran knows, eventually Britain and the United States resorted to orchestrating a coup against the Mossadegh government in order to remove him and install the Shah before the last shah. So bottom line is, blockades can be effective, but they're often not watertight and they often can take years or have to be in in conjunction with many other measures to have the impact that is sought, particularly if that impact is a dramatic reversal of policy or the collapse of a government. A reminder that the British blockade of Germany in the First World War probably did contribute greatly to Germany's eventual defeat, but it took four years and immense economic suffering inside Germany before that occurred.

[Venetia Rainey]

It's interesting because Trump is clearly keeping other options open. We've seen some reporting in the Wall Street Journal this morning that both A fully fledged bombing campaign and limited military strike on Iranian infrastructure are among the options that he's still considering. This was him speaking to Fox News show Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo over the weekend.

[Donald Trump]

I could take out Iran in one day. I could take down in one, in one hour. I could have their entire energy, everything, every one of their plants, their electric generating plants, which is a big deal. And I hate to do it because if I do it, it takes you 10 years to rebuild. They'll never be able to rebuild it. And the other thing you take out of the bridges, I took out one just to show them because they went public with a statement that wasn't true. They admitted it. I say, I'm going to take out a bridge. And I took out a bridge. And that was the end of that. Now they've been really behaving quite well. But in one half of a day, they wouldn't have one bridge standing. They wouldn't have one electric generating plant standing. And they're back in the stone Ages. I'd rather not do that. But I do believe they're going to come to the table on this because nobody can be so stupid as to say that we want to have nuclear weapons. And they have no cards. They have no cards whatsoever.

[Venetia Rainey]

That was Donald Trump speaking to Fox News over the weekend. It remains to be seen what's going to come of this blockade. It's coming into force as we record this. So we'll be following exactly what that looks like tomorrow. Let's take a pause now. Coming up after the break, we'll be looking at why the peace talks failed and what might happen next.

[Progressive Insurance Ad]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[VRBO Ad]

Early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over $120. Rise and shine. Average savings $141 select homes only.

[Acast Ad]

Influencer marketing isn't what it used to be. We're shifting from reach to resonance, from impressions to impact. It's no longer about how many people see your content. It's how deeply you connect with them. And nothing creates that connection quite like podcasts. Acast's podcast pulse 2025 report reveals how podcast creators are redefining influence through resonance multi platform fandoms and their ability to shape culture. So if you're a marketer who's tired of vanity metrics and looking for meaningful results, podcasts are where you need to be. Download the full research free at podcast pulse2025.com.

[Roland Oliphant]

Welcome back. You're listening to Iran, the latest from the Telegraph, with me, Roland Oliphant and Venetia Rainey. I'm now pleased to turn to the Telegraph senior foreign correspondent Adrian Blomfeld, who is currently in Oman, where he has been looking at the impact of the war on the Gulf countries and particularly this threat of a blockade, and also why the peace talks failed. Here's our conversation.

[Venetia Rainey]

Adrian, welcome to Iran. The latest let's spool back a bit to these historic peace talks that happened over the weekend. And this we were saying earlier in the podcast, but this is the first time that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US have sat down for direct peace talks since 1979, since the establishment of the republic. So this was quite a big deal. Just how did things go on that Saturday? Talk us through what was happening in terms of the actual peace talks happening in Islamabad.

[Adrian Blomfield]

Obviously, as you say, historic and some expectation, not necessarily that we were going to see everything solved in a single session, but perhaps that there might be progress. So it was a very tight ship that J.D. vance ran. It was one of the reasons why he was there. I mean, plenty of reasons why he came. The Iranians wanted him because he was seen as sceptical about the war. The Pakistanis apparently wanted him because his outfit leaked less than those of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. And perhaps Trump wanted him to go because he could own the outcome. As Donald Trump joked before Easter, when J.D. vance was attempting some diplomacy over the phone, he said, if things go wrong, I blame J.D. vance. If things go right, I take the credit. I mean, that was in jest, but many are true words spoken in jest. So we had both sides arriving very serious delegations. Unlike some previous negotiations, it wasn't just Wyckoff blagging his way through talks. There were serious experts and diplomats in the US Delegation, which showed a more traditional form of diplomacy than we've seen in the past. And likewise in the delegation led by the Iranians by Kalibaf, we saw a number of experts, some questions over whether there were any nuclear experts on the Iranian side, but there were nonetheless certainly plenty of sanctions experts. And so the talks did seem to be constructive and they went on. There was very little information that was coming out. They went on for 21 hours. There were suggestions that progress was being made. There were drafts being swapped in various expert teams. That all sounded very promising, which is why optimism started to climb. But then a little bit after dawn broke in Islamabad, JD Vance came to the podium and spoke for about three minutes, taking three questions and he announced that there was no deal and that he was off home.

[Venetia Rainey]

Let's hear a clip of J.D. vance announcing that at the end of those talks.

[J.D. Vance]

We have been at it now for 21 hours and we've had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That's the good news. The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement. And I think that's bad news for Iran much more than it's bad news for the United States of America. So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We've made very clear what our red lines are, what things we're willing to accommodate them on and what things we're not willing to accommodate them on. And we've made that as clear as we possibly could. And they have chosen not to accept our terms.

[Venetia Rainey]

Should also just quickly add the Iranian foreign Minister's statement after the peace talks. Abbas Al Raghji he posted on X In intensive talks at highest level in 47 years, Iran engaged with us in good faith to end the war. But when just inches away from Islamabad, MoU memorandum of understanding, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, posts and blockade.

[Roland Oliphant]

So Adrian, there's been a lot of, as with so much in this conflict, a lot of smokes and mirrors around what actually happened. So what do we know about what they did agree on and what they disagreed on?

[Adrian Blomfield]

Well, I don't think we know much about what they did agree on because that's not been revealed. Although I think there was potentially some closeness on certain issues. But we do know from various sources what they didn't agree on. And that boils down to the issue of nuclear enrichment. Same as ever. It boils down to the Strait of Hormuz, which is obviously an issue that has only arisen since those last peace talks took place in Geneva just before the war started. And then finally the issue was on the release of frozen Iranian assets. There had been some suggestion that there may be progress because there was a certain amount and it felt that this was low hanging fruit. There's about $6 billion of Iranian frozen assets mainly being held in Qatar. That's not all of Iran's frozen oil Revenues, this is some of them. But that had been agreed that the US was going to hand it over in 2023. It was a deal between the Biden administration and Iran over a prisoner swap. And it looks Iran said an agreement had been reached. This was just as the talks were kicking off. The US Denied it, and it seems that no Iranian oil revenues are going to be released. So those were the three things that they were unable to reach consensus on. Interestingly, Lebanon was not mentioned by either side in that, despite having appeared to have been the sticking point in advance. And one suspects that the issue of Lebanon was slightly performative. It was an attempt by Iran to gain leverage before the talks began. We've seen in the past that Iran didn't come to Hezbollah's rescue in 2020 for when that conflict began in earnest. And there were some missiles, obviously, that were fired following the death of Hassan Nasrallah. But one of. I was in Lebanon at the time. One of the big complaints from Shias in Lebanon was that Iran didn't come to their rescue. And so one suspects that the issue of Lebanon was slightly performative. Iran not going to come to the rescue of Hezbollah, but testing the waters because they always feared that there wouldn't be a permanent deal, that Israel wouldn't abide by it. Lebanon was a test case to see if the US could or was willing to try to control Benjamin Netanyahu. That question remained unanswered. But whatever was the case, it doesn't appear to have been a central issue in those marathon talks in Islamabad.

[Venetia Rainey]

That's interesting. And I saw some reporting that according to Pakistani sources, they were expecting J.D. vance to stay longer, that they were expecting the talks to continue on Sunday. Did you see that confirmed from either side?

[Adrian Blomfield]

I mean, it was clear that J.D. vance wasn't going to spend two weeks at the Serena Hotel in Islamabad. So, yes, it was possible that there were going to be a couple of days of talks. But of course, you did have this marathon session. And I think there are different interpretations of where we stand now. And I'd break that down into those who still believe that the negotiating process is flourishing, those who believe it's floundering, and those who believe it's foundering. So I can go into those if you want. So on the flourishing side, this was simply by walking away is a negotiating tactic. It's not the end of the process. Here is the deal in order to try and increase the chances of getting it through. You walk away. You walk away, but the plan is to come back later. When Iran is willing to make a better offer. And of course, you know, some progress may have been made because this was the highest level delegation, the highest level talks since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. So, you know, there is that some progress may have been made. There may still be back channel negotiations continuing in the background. So that's the positive case because one could see the potential contours of a deal. So maybe that is going to happen. The suggestion that the talks are floundering is that, okay, both sides are stuck, there's no, no clear way of bridging the chasm, but maybe there is a fudge that could come out in time. You could see continued extensions of the ceasefire deal. Both sides don't really want to go back to war. And then there's the foundering where on a ladder of escalation, the blockade that was announced by Donald Trump last night may be the first rung in that ladder of escalation, and that we're heading back to war. So that's the pessimistic case. Which of those three outcomes is clear is too soon to tell.

[Roland Oliphant]

Adrian. I suppose that the really big question is, is this it? And does that mean that when the current two weeks ceasefire expires on Wednesday the 22nd of this month, that the war resumes?

[Adrian Blomfield]

Well, anything is possible. I mean, I think one thing that we can say with a degree of certainty is that what a deadline is for Mr. Trump is not what a deadline is for me as a newspaper journalist, if I have to file a piece by 5pm I can perhaps have a little bit of leeway. If Donald Trump says he's going to go back to war in 14 days, I don't necessarily think I would hold too much credence in that. It doesn't mean that he's not serious about potentially going back to war. One of the dangers is that both sides potentially misread each other. But, you know, we saw with his deadline that that deadline to hit Iranian bridges and power plants, that deadline, I think, was extended a total of five times. So I think it is entirely possible that this deadline would also be allowed to pass. My initial instinct when I first heard about this ceasefire is that it's going to be like phase two of the Gaza talks. It's something that can continue to be kicked down the road. The difference is, of course, that here we have Iran still exerting control over the state, over the Strait of Hormuz. And so it still has that key piece of leverage, which is one of the main reasons why Iran isn't backing down. It has replaced its weapon of, or its desire for a weapon of mass destruction with a weapon of mass disruption, as the joke goes. And it can replace the nuclear brinkmanship with this economic extortion that potentially holds the world to ransom. And that is now why Trump is trying to break that particular piece of the puzzle with his own blockade. And we're going to see where that goes because it's now a game of chicken.

[Venetia Rainey]

Yeah. Well, let's talk about the blockade and the Strait of Hormuz because we're living through another Trump deadline today. He has said that at 2:00pm GMT. So that's 5:30 local time in Iran and 10:00am Eastern Standard Time. They are going to impose a block on Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM put out a statement saying the navy will stop all vessels from any nation from passing through the Strait of Hormuz if they're sailing to or from Iran. Vessels transiting the strait to and from non Iranian ports will not be impeded. And Trump added on social media that anyone who pays a toll to Iran would not be allowed through as well. What's the likelihood of this working, Adrian?

[Adrian Blomfield]

I mean, I think it's possible that the world's most powerful navy can impose a blockade. I've seen arguments that they're going to be challenges. I mean, I think the idea of, because Mr. Trump has said that those ships that paid a toll to Iran since a ceasefire was imposed, he suggested that the US Navy would chase those down. And, you know, we did see that, of course, with the Russian flagged vessel that was chased across the Atlantic. So Trump has a record on that. That was during the blockade, of course, on Venezuela. That this is a completely different kettle of fish. It depends on what flag those ships were carrying, whether Trump would really go ahead with that. I mean, if it's a Chinese flagged vessel, is the U.S. navy really going to risk a confrontation with that? That remains to be seen. In terms of blockading ports, Iranian ports, and blockading the Strait of Hormuz with this counter blockade, I think it is feasible. I'm in the Gulf at the moment. I would say that's not the outcome that they were hoping for. They certainly wanted Trump to use force to lift that blockade, perhaps with a military operation on Carg island on the other side of the strait. They weren't really holding out. One of the least desired outcomes was a second blockade, which obviously is going to have severe one has already had implications on energy markets, oil is back above $100 a barrel. So the question is, is it going to work, though, in terms of making Iran back down? Certainly that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. We're seeing more defiance from Iran. You can see the rationale here. The Iranian economy is in dire straits by some estimates, because this has been a war that has not just targeted the Iranian military, it's targeted the Iranian industrial complex as well as. So by some estimates, a million jobs have been lost in Iran. 200,000 people alone worked in the petrochemical and steel plant industry. Those plants have been very badly hit. So that's affecting 200,000 people alone. Iran regained some of the sympathy, quite a lot of public sympathy, over the course of this war, because people, you know, remember, of course, there were those big protests viciously put down in January, but people were not happy with the way that their country was being targeted by Israel. And the US Sentiment sort of shifted back to the regime. You can see that potentially that might swing again as the economy suffers. But at the moment, despite the fact that, obviously if Iran is unable to send out its oil exports, I think account for more than 15% of GDP, that could have a devastating effect. But there is no sign at the moment that the Iranian regime is going to back down. It's going to be the people who pay the consequence. They need to keep that in mind. But I'm not sure that we're going to see an immediate climb down. Economic pressure rarely works quickly. I think we've seen that around the world. So it's a question of who is going to blink first. And the Iranians believe that Donald Trump cannot stand the pain too much longer of a shutdown of the strait and that he will therefore send his team back to the negotiating table.

[Roland Oliphant]

I suppose one of the questions, Adrian, is why wasn't this tried before during the war, as many people observed, while the fighting was ongoing, Iran's own ships were passing freely through the Strait of Hormuz unmolested. A lot of people ask the question, why doesn't the United States simply start impounding those vessels?

[Adrian Blomfield]

Well, I think there are two possible answers to that. The first was on a practical level, because at that stage, the war was still continuing. So you had your naval assets engaged in kinetic action against Iran. So trying to impose a blockade as well potentially risks overstretching resources. The second one is the legal implication because there are arguments that Iran is breaking international law, international maritime law, with this blockade. It denies it. They're complicated exceptions. That it argues in terms of innocent passage versus transit passage under the UN Convention on the Rule of the Sea, which Iran has not signed. The UN in terms of the International Maritime Organization, the US Reject that argument. If the US Imposes its own blockade, it potentially faces accusations that it itself is in breach of international law. And it certainly undermines the argument that Donald Trump has been trying to make. Now, there is a counter argument on that from my understanding, because if you're trying to break a blockade, you could legally argue that this is not imposing a blockade, it's trying to lift one. But I think that, I suspect are two of the reasons why this wasn't attempted before.

[Venetia Rainey]

The US Sailed two warships through the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend, didn't they? The USS Frankie Peterson and the USS Michael Murphy. And apparently they switched on their responders on purpose, which they don't normally do, to make it clear to the Iranians that they had sailed through. CENTCOM have said that they're part of an operation to start clearing mines that have been placed by the irgc and they'll be joined by more US Forces, including underwater drones, to try and maintain the fact that the strait is an international sea passage. US Warships haven't previously entered the Strait of Hormuz. That's why this is so significant. We need to make this clear. A lot of people might imagine that this war is being fought in the Strait of Hormuz. It's not. US have kept their maritime assets far back from the Strait of Hormuz to avoid any sort of risk of being hit and those images ending up in the press. So this is really significant. Do you think we're going to see more of this US Assets sailing through the strait and trying to escort ships out?

[Adrian Blomfield]

Perhaps, yes. I think it's perhaps too soon to start speaking about escorts of ships, although that's unlikely where we're going to end up. But undoubtedly, I think Donald Trump is hoping that this can replace actual fighting, you know, a naval blockade. And he has to show strength. So it's a show of strength that we saw with these vessels passing through. And I think we're likely to see more of that kind of assertion because otherwise there isn't meaningful pressure on Iran to back down. So I think we'll see that. And Donald Trump has spoken of other nations joining him, so we're going to have to see what that means. I was recently in Ukraine on the Black Sea, and, you know, the Ukrainians were very impressed with what Britain's counter mine measures capability is in terms of both crude mine hunting and uncrewed mine sweeping. So Britain, despite its limited military resources, is still potentially a world leader, and that could play a significant role. But, of course, mines are only one part of the equation in terms of opening that strait, which is presumably, well, which we know is what Donald Trump end goal is. You've obviously got the drone threat, which means trying to control the coast. And of course, nowadays you need to control more than the coast in order to stop drones being fired. So that then puts full military action back on the table. And this is why we keep spiraling around. It is a vicious circle. And how that circle is broken remains unclear.

[Venetia Rainey]

And just finally, you mentioned other countries coming in. We've had Emmanuel Macron, the French president, coming out today saying that France and Britain will be leading a conference discussing a peaceful multinational mission aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz that will take place in the coming days. Trump has been pushing obviously, very hard for other countries and NATO members specifically to militarily intervene to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. How do you see this playing out in terms of America's international partners and their involvement?

[Adrian Blomfield]

Well, I think we've also seen some fairly clear language that those European countries are not going to participate in the blockade. They may participate in and removing of mines. That is already clear. But I think the contours of this are laid out. Let's see how that evolves. Obviously, there's enormous pressure on NATO, and we saw that rather desperate attempt by Mark Rutter, the head of NATO, to try and bring about a reconciliation. And of course, one of the things that Donald Trump would love to do is to distract attention from this crisis by bringing back some of those more popular, at least with his base foreign policy issues, from Greenland to NATO to Ukraine. Let's see what unfolds. But of course, the hope is going to be that there is another round of peace talks. It might not look like it at the moment, but there are some who saying, you know, this is not the end of the process and we need to see what happens next. I think one of the most incongruous moments going back to what was happening in Pakistan, was the, you know, classic split screen, because when J.D. vance came out to speak to the press to say that and explain why talks had collapsed, you had Donald Trump and Marco Rubio watching some kind of, of wrestling in, in Miami. So you've got on the one hand this J.D. vance, who has no pedigree in negotiating, talking about why Torts had collapsed in in while he was in Islamabad. And then on the other America's top diplomatic, the man who arguably should have been that watching men in pants thumping each other. So let's see. I mean it doesn't look from that perspective, it looks like typical Trump chaos. But there are those who say that behind the scenes things may still be in the works and this negotiating tract is not yet over yet. Now, of course, those tend to be people who take Trump's side, who argue that Donald Trump is a strategic genius. His unpredictability as part of his his of his diplomacy, his way of getting things done. Let's see if that pans out.

[Venetia Rainey]

Adrian Blomfield, our senior foreign correspondent, joining us from Muscat and Oman. Thank you very much for joining us

[Roland Oliphant]

on Iran the Latest that's all for today. I will be flying the the podcast solo for the next few days. Until tomorrow. That was Iran the Latest Goodbye Goodbye. Iran the Latest is not the original podcast from the Telegraph, created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Roland Olyphant and Venetia Rainey. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Iran the Latest formerly Battle Lines on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, please leave a review as this helps others find the show. To stay on top of all our news, subscribe to the Telegraph, sign up for our Dispatches newsletter or listen to our sister podcast Ukraine the Latest. We're still on the same. Same email address battlelinestelegraph.co.uk or contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show. Notes the producer is Peter Shevelin. The executive producer is Louisa Wells.

[Progressive Insurance Ad]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Roland Oliphant]

ACAS Powers the World's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend.

[Courtney]

Welcome back to two Judgy Girls. It's Mary from the Bay and it's Courtney from la.

[Mary]

Every week we're talking about the only things that truly matter.

[Courtney]

Bravo, pop culture, reality TV and of

[Mary]

course, our very own chaotic lives.

[Courtney]

If there's a feud, a scandal or messy drama, we've got thoughts.

[Mary]

Lots of them.

[Courtney]

We break down all the episodes like it's our job.

[Mary]

Because honestly, it kind of is.

[Courtney]

From Beverly Hills to New York summer house to Southern Charm, if they filmed

[Mary]

it, you better believe we're gonna talk about it.

[Courtney]

Expect hot takes, unfiltered opinions and a lot of laughter.

[Mary]

We're like your best friends who never stop talking about tv.

[Courtney]

So pour yourself something strong, maybe a

[Mary]

teeny or a big cup of coffee,

[Courtney]

and join us every week for two Judgy Girls. Because being judgy has never been this fun.

[Roland Oliphant]

ACAST helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere.

[Adrian Blomfield]

Acast.com.