President Trump Threatens to Blockade the Strait of Hormuz; Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken on His Experience Negotiating with Iran

Summary

Fareed Zakaria GPS Episode: Diplomatic Crossroads: Insights into the US-Iran Conflict
Date: April 12, 2026

---

Overview

In this special episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed examines the fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran, the military and economic stakes surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, and the broader geopolitics affecting Gulf states and energy markets. The episode features expert analysis from Admiral James Stavridis, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Harvard’s Tarek Massoud, and energy policy scholar Karen Young, focusing on diplomatic challenges, military risk, the evolution of US policy, Gulf state perspectives, and the looming global energy crisis.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. US Military Strategy and the Strait of Hormuz

With: Admiral James Stavridis
[02:38] – [06:45]

• Naval Blockade Complexity & Risks

  • Admiral Stavridis underscores the significant undertaking a naval blockade involves:

    "Any blockade is difficult because it's an open seaway...when you conduct a blockade, it is an act of war and it has grave consequence in terms of how you execute it." — Stavridis [02:38]

  • Detailed breakdown of what’s required: at least two aircraft carrier strike groups, about a dozen destroyers and frigates, supported by Saudi and Emirati navies to “bottle up” the strait on both ends.

• Economic Squeeze vs. All-Out War

  • The blockade is positioned as a middle-ground tactic between, as Stavridis puts it, "doing nothing" and "destroying the civilization of Iran." [03:50]

• Iranian Asymmetric Threats

  • Iran likely to respond with smuggling ("blockade runners"), laying new mines, and, critically, increased cyber attacks — potentially abetted by Russia and China.
  • Fareed remarks on Iran's previous use of low-cost tactics to spook insurers, effectively halting traffic; Stavridis agrees such strategies might escalate.
  • Memorable:

    "It's like in Ghostbusters, you don't want those streams to cross." — Stavridis, mixing humor with the explanation of multiple threat vectors [06:34]

---

2. Negotiating With Iran: Diplomatic Realities

With: Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken
[12:05] – [24:56]

• Track Record of Iranian Concessions

  • Blinken points out Iran has only made “fundamental compromises” twice in 47 years: ending the Iran-Iraq war and the 2015 nuclear deal.
  • On current US strategy:

    "[Trump] has really put himself into a corner over the last few weeks that's going to be very hard to get out of." — Blinken [12:25]

• Limitations of Escalation

  • Blinken emphasizes two “guardrails” on US action: concern about market disruptions and the depletion of US munitions, the latter impacting global deterrence (including against China). [12:51]

• Tactical Success, Strategic Failure

  • The US military may win on the battlefield, but Iran retains key assets: regime survival, uranium, missile capabilities, and crucially, leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.

    "We're left with a regime that's still in place...and, of course, critically, a new huge advantage, the Strait of Hormuz, something that didn't exist before." — Blinken [13:36]

• Enrichment and Negotiation Stalemates

  • Reiterates the key sticking point: Iran’s right to enrichment. Past agreements allowed “face-saving” low-level enrichment — a compromise that could be revived.

    "...you could come to an agreement that gave the Iranians, in a sense, as a practical matter, the ability to continue enriching at very low levels...doesn't concede the right, but gives them a face saver." — Blinken [16:47]

• Why Not Rejoin the Nuclear Deal?

  • Two obstacles: Iran's technical advances after the Trump withdrawal shortened the nuclear "breakout time," and Iranian demands for guarantees against future US abandonment.

    "They wanted some kind of guarantee, maybe congressional approval of the agreement as a treaty. Incredibly hard to do with our politics." — Blinken [19:18]

• Iran as a Negotiating Adversary

  • Iran is not monolithic; internal divisions slow and complicate negotiations. Iranian diplomats are “master negotiators”—the US sometimes had to employ brinksmanship (e.g., packing up and threatening to leave).

    "We've been hearing a lot about civilization...this is a great civilization, and even this heinous regime has some of the positive attributes...an extraordinary track record of being able to negotiate..." — Blinken [20:50]

• On Israeli Influence

  • Netanyahu lobbied several US presidents for strikes on Iran but only succeeded with Trump. Blinken asserts other US leaders prioritized calibrated pressure and avoided existential threats to avoid “fight to the death” scenarios.

• Advice for President Trump

  • Blinken's counsel:

    “Don’t go back to fighting. It’s not going to be in our interest...Keep the pressure on...engage in diplomacy for however long it takes to get a deal. And a deal is going to involve some compromise.” [23:58]

  • Focus should be on resolving the crisis over the Strait of Hormuz, requiring “strategic patience.”

---

3. Gulf State Perspectives on the Conflict

With: Prof. Tarek Massoud
[25:45] – [32:01]

• Initial Gulf Attitudes

  • Contrary to narratives that Saudi Arabia pushed the US into war, Massoud’s sources indicate Gulf states preferred avoiding conflict, with varied positions ranging from Oman’s mediation role to Bahrain’s staunch opposition to Iran.

• Changing Spectrums, Rising Tensions

  • Gulf states, especially those hosting US bases (UAE, Qatar), have shifted towards anti-Iran positions after experiencing direct Iranian attacks.

• Avoiding Two Worst Outcomes

  • Gulf states fear:
    1. Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz with missile/drone capacity
    2. A failed Iranian state leading to regional chaos, refugee flows, and spillover of violence.
  • Ambivalence toward the US: Some perceive hosting US bases as liabilities, making their nations targets.

• Pro-American vs. Non-Aligned Camps

  • While leaderships are generally pro-American, a growing “non-aligned” faction favors diversified relationships and skepticism toward US priorities. Notably, Trump's popularity in the Gulf waned after the recent chaos.

• Long-Term Implication

  • Gulf states may seek to hedge and balance ties within US politics and with other global powers, wary of over-reliance on a volatile US policy.

---

4. Global Energy Crisis and the Blockade’s Impact

With: Karen Young
[33:22] – [38:46]

• Oil Market Expectations vs. Reality

  • Despite massive geopolitical risk, oil prices are not as high as might be expected — a sign of market optimism or denial.

    “There's some wishful thinking...the ability to encourage more transit of barrels through the Strait of Hormuz. That's obviously not resolved.” — Young [33:52]

• Blockade's Economic Shock

  • Blockade further squeezes supply by shutting Iranian exports (~1.6 million bpd) and strains regional pipelines.

    "We still have the problem of a shortage...and we just added to that by making the Iranian barrels off the market." — Young [35:14]

• Downstream Effects & Timeline

  • Consequences are severe and global: energy inflation affects everything from food to manufacturing due to the role of hydrocarbons in fertilizers, plastics, and chemicals.
  • Poorer and energy-import dependent countries (e.g., in Asia) hit hardest first; even the US and Europe will feel inflationary pain.

    “We're going to see inflationary pressure both on transit fuels and on food in the US, but yes, Asia has felt the pinch first.” — Young [36:35]

• Duration of Crisis

  • Recovery is projected to be slow:

    “This will not get better until at best 2027, I think.” — Zakaria [38:19] “Yes... time to restart oil production...adds weeks if not months and assumes that we get to some sort of normal level of traffic flows.” — Young [38:26]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Stavridis on Asymmetric Warfare:

  "There are three things [Iran could do]: smuggling, deploying new mines, and cyber—helped by China and Russia. It's like in Ghostbusters, you don't want those streams to cross." — [06:34]

• Blinken on JCPOA Approach:

  "We never conceded their right to enrich. But as a practical matter, under the JCPOA, we moved out 97% of their highly enriched uranium, but they retained some capacity at a very low level." — [15:58]

• Massoud on Gulf Realpolitik:

  "One could argue that these countries would have experienced a much more difficult security situation had there not been the American guarantee...There's another camp...diversify our relationships, go to the Chinese, etc. That latter camp is definitely ascendant." — [30:00]

• Karen Young on Long-Term Impact:

  "For now and into the end of 2026, we're looking at elevated oil prices for certain...because of this sort of time it takes to restart...Those are huge variables which are really, really unsolved." — [35:36]

• Fareed Zakaria’s Final Analysis:

  “To treat the Strait of Hormuz as a toll booth rather than a global commons is to misunderstand both history and strategy...If the US becomes just another predatory hegemon, it will discover what history has long shown: such power is feared, resented, and ultimately resisted.” — [39:36]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:38] – Admiral Stavridis on naval blockade logistics and risks
• [05:07] – Asymmetric Iranian countermeasures
• [12:05] – Antony Blinken on history of US-Iran negotiations, current crossroads
• [15:17] – On enrichment compromises and JCPOA lessons
• [19:18] – Why the US didn't rejoin the nuclear deal after Trump
• [23:58] – Blinken’s advice to Trump: diplomatic patience over further escalation
• [25:45] – Tarek Massoud on Gulf states’ perspectives and internal debates
• [33:22] – Karen Young on oil markets, blockade shock, global implications
• [39:36] – Fareed Zakaria’s closing commentary on the US’s strategic choices

---

Summary Tone

True to Fareed Zakaria’s analytical style, the discussion is methodical, informed, and layered. The episode blends sober realism (military and diplomatic risks, long-term costs, and the resilience of adversaries) with a persistent call for strategic patience, realism, and multilateralism. Guests offer expertise with candor and occasional dry wit. The underlying message: in this volatile, interconnected conflict, there are no easy answers — only hard trade-offs, potential for protracted instability, and an urgent need for wise, far-sighted leadership.

---

For listeners new to the topic, this episode provides a comprehensive tour of the escalated US-Iran standoff — its military, diplomatic, regional, and economic dimensions — featuring clear-headed expert voices and a signature Fareed Zakaria plea for strategic prudence over transactional short-termism.

Transcript

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Join Eva Longoria as she explores France's

[Commercial Announcer]

rich history and savors its world celebrated cuisine in the CNN original series Eva Searching for France, premiering April 12 on

[Antony Blinken]

CNN and the next day on the CNN app.

[Commercial Announcer]

The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. @blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to hand measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure right now. Get up to 40% off site wide plus get a free professional [e-mail] rules and restrictions apply with verbo care.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Help is always ready before, during and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind. This is gps, the global Public Square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you live from Washington, D.C. today on the program, the fragile state of the ceasefire and what comes next, I have an exclusive interview with the former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, bringing to bear his extensive experience negotiating with Iran. He tells me how he thinks this might all end. Later in the show, we'll understand how the Gulf states are dealing with the war in their midst and we'll take a look at the major energy crisis and whether it is over. I'll bring you my take at the end of the show. Let's first go to a breaking news. This morning, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, quote, effective immediately, the United States Navy, the finest in the world, will begin the process of blockading any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, at an appropriate moment, we are fully locked and loaded and our military will finish up the little that is left of Iran. Let us try to understand how a blockade would work. I'm joined by Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Commander. Jim, how you've traversed these straits dozens, maybe hundreds of times. Tell us how a blockade would work and how much American naval power would be required to make it work.

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Well, I certainly agree with one thing the president said was the United States Navy is the finest in the world. I'll take that. But this is not trivial work. Any blockade is difficult because it's an open seaway. Historically, we are enormous supporters of freedom of navigation. So when you conduct A blockade. It is an act of war and it is something that has grave consequence in terms of how you execute it. As to how many ships you would need, I'd say if I were the admiral in command and Brad Cooper, Admiral Brad Cooper is the CENTCOM commander. He will probably want to put two aircraft carrier strike groups, so that's two carriers. So he has plenty of air cover up above him. And then he'll want about a dozen destroyers and frigates. All of this would be a raid in the southern part of the Gulf. All the way down outside the Gulf would be the U.S. forces. And then inside the Gulf, Farid, you've got probably half a dozen American warships and you'd want to bring in the Emirati Navy, the Saudi navy. So you try and bottle it up on both sides. Bottom line, this is a big task and it's a big gamble. So final thought here. What's the play? Why are we doing this? I think is going to be the question on most people's minds. And it's an economic squeeze. So if you think of this on a scale that runs from doing nothing, walking away from the table, ceasing hostilities, that runs to destroying the civilization of Iran, an economic blockade like this is right in the middle. It puts economic pressure on Tehran without destroying the oil facilities, which you'd want to preserve into the future. So big, complicated undertaking, hardly a trivial movement on the chessboard.

[Fareed Zakaria]

We've been watching and so far, Jim, Iran has found asymmetrical ways, often quite cheap, to, you know, to maintain its control of the strait by essentially just spooking insurance companies enough that there is no traffic. Is there an asymmetric, Is there something the Iranians can do? What do you imagine would be their kind of countermeasure?

[Admiral James Stavridis]

Let's do it from the inside out. So let's look at the strait itself. The asymmetric play there would be smuggling. It would be trying to run the blockade. Think what the Confederate south did in the United States when Abraham Lincoln put an enormous blockade around the entire southern states. It's pretty porous. And so they could certainly try smuggling. That'll be very difficult. Secondly, they could put more mines in the water. Fortunately, CENTCOM has destroyed, According to reports, 90 plus percent of the 5,000 pre war mines. But Iran could put a lot more mines into the water and they could come off small boats or dhows, which are the ubiquitous indigenous craft of the Gulf. Moving out from the Gulf itself, I would start to really worry about cyber. And what I mean by that is here's China, an expert cyber nation alongside Russia, another expert cyber nation. Here's a way that they could assist Iran by using cyber and all of this Fareed, as you've reported on over the last couple of months, comes at a time when AI is making cyber tools much more accessible available. So this emerging strain of cyber threat is one stream and then aid from Russia and China is another stream of threat. It's like in Ghostbusters, you don't want those streams to cross. So there are three things they could think about.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Jim, as always, we get so much smarter listening to you. Thank you. Next on gps, the former Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

[Commercial Announcer]

Eva Longoria searching for France tonight at 9 on CNN. And next day on the CNN app

with Safelight, you can get that fixed

[Antony Blinken]

now and pay later.

[Commercial Announcer]

Fix now, pay later.

Safelight offers flexible payment options in anywhere mobile service. So you can get it fixed here, here or here and pay later. Go to safelight.com today. Safelight Repair safelight replace Eczema isn't fair

[Antony Blinken]

and it isn't your fault.

[Karen Young]

But with ebglis, people with moderate to

[Fareed Zakaria]

severe eczema can have real results like

[Karen Young]

skin that's still more clear.

[Commercial Announcer]

Don't use if you're allergic to ebglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebglis. Before starting ebglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

[Karen Young]

Ask your doctor about once monthly.

[Antony Blinken]

Epglis arthritis causes pain in your joints. Unlike pills, Voltaren gel is applied to the site of pain, penetrating deep through the skin to the joint, reducing intense pain caused by inflammation. So you can nerve clinically proven long lasting arthritis pain relief.

[Karen Young]

To remind you that 60% of sales on Amazon come from independent sellers, Jess from Planetary Design will pour 60 cups of coffee for 60 adventurers.

[Antony Blinken]

Shoot.

[Karen Young]

Lost count Shop small business on Amazon to remind you that 60% of sales on Amazon come from independent sellers. John from Bluecorn beeswax will light 60 candles for Marv and Ethel's sake. 60th wedding anniversary Marv Ethel Shop small business on Amazon Here I am.

[Commercial Announcer]

Field trip chaperone before helping prevent migraine with Q Lipta. It was hard keeping plans and look at me now. You'll never truly forget migraine, but Q Lipta reduces attacks making more zero migraine days possible to help give that forget you get migraine feeling.

[Karen Young]

Don't take if allergic, stop taking and

[Commercial Announcer]

get help right away for allergic reactions

[Karen Young]

like trouble breathing, face, lip or tongue, swelling, itching or rash.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Tell your doctor about increased blood pressure

[Karen Young]

or color changes, pain or numbness in fingers or toes.

[Commercial Announcer]

Ask your doctor about Culipda to help prevent migraine.

[Claire Duffy]

Still taking yours every day Made to

[Antony Blinken]

care for you every day.

[Commercial Announcer]

Nature made the number one pharmacist Recommended vitamin and supplement brand Allergies used to negotiate every invite, but now it's yes season with Zyrtec's fast 24 hour relief. So say yes to patio hangs, play dates, windows open. Say yes to your thing, whatever it is. Z's the day.

Mazur Tech look, if you're an executive, this shirt is a must have in your closet. I was tired of floppy collars and shirts with sweat stains so I got this shirt I saw on TV and now I don't have to worry. I got it shipped in no time and I switched from regular Polos to this immediately. The brand is called Collars and company. They make a regular stretchy golf shirt, but the top has a firm collar on it. I got rid of so many problems by upgrading to this. No dry cleaning needed anymore. I'm free from uncomfortable long sleeves and the collars stay stiff all day. Get 20% off today using code [e-mail]

the itch and rash of moderate to severe eczema disrupts my skin. Despite treatment, it's still not under control. Now I have Rin Voq, a once daily pill that reduces the itch and helps clear the rash of eczema fast. Some felt significant itch relief as early as two days and some achieve dramatic skin clearance as early as 22 weeks. Many saw clear or almost clear skin.

Rinvoq can lower ability to fight infections before treatment, test for TB and do blood work. Serious infections, blood clots, some fatal cancers including lymphoma and skin, Serious allergic reactions, GI tears, death, heart attack and stroke occurred. CV event risk increases in age 50 plus with a heart disease risk factor. Tell your doctor if you've had these events infection, hep B or C smoked, are pregnant or planning, don't take if allergic or have an infection disrupt the

itch and rash of eczema. See a head to head study of versus another [e-mail] seethedata Talk to your dermatologist if you're not doing well on your current pill or injection to see if Rinvoq is right for you.

Closed captioning is brought to you by Skechers Slip in pants looking for the

most comfortable, stylish, easiest pants around. Try new Skechers Slip in pants. Just slip in and experience Skechers innovative comfort technology fabric Skechers Slip in pants.

[Fareed Zakaria]

As the sun was rising in Islamabad this morning, JD Vance and his delegation left the Pakistani capital. This came after 21 hours of talks with the Iranians which failed to secure a lasting peace deal to end the war in Iran. As of this moment, there is still a cease fire in place, but it feels more fragile than ever. I wanted to help us all understand what it is like to negotiate with the Iranians. I could think of few better people to explain that than Antony Blinken. He was, of course, Secretary of State under President Joe Biden, but he was also President Obama's Deputy Secretary of State when the nuclear deal with Iran was negotiated in 2015. I asked him on Thursday to share his thoughts with me.

[Antony Blinken]

I mean, look, in the whole history of The Revolutionary Republic, 47 years, they've only made a fundamental compromise and come to a fundamental conclusion on something twice ending the eight years of the war with Iraq and then the nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, which took us two and a half years to get to. And so I think what we've seen is, you know, President Trump has taken an off ramp. Maybe he was tired of all that winning. The question is, is this off ramp to a rest stop, which seems the most likely thing. Is it to some kind of destination or is it to some kind of dead end? And the challenge he has is he's really put himself into a corner over the last few weeks that's going to be very hard to get out of the.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And you don't think he can restart the war because that is an option, right?

[Antony Blinken]

It is an option. But my sense of this has been that the President has had two guardrails on what he's markets and munitions. Very sensitive to markets, understandably. Price of oil, gasoline, natural gas, fertilizer, the bond market, the stock market, etc. That's one guardrail. The other guardrail has been munitions, our supply of both offensive and defensive munitions. And these in some cases are significantly depleted, such that our deterrence is diminished, including with regard to China. But the other problem is this, Farid. You can have a tactical success, which on one level, clearly we've had. The military, as always, does a brilliant job prosecuting its target lists, doing remarkable things. But you have tactical success and strategic failure, or at least strategic setback, because what are we left with at the end of this? We're left with a regime that's still in place with a younger, albeit maybe injured Ayatollah. We're left with Iran still holding on to the highly enriched uranium that it had before, as well as centrifuges that it can spin up. We're left with an Iran that is battered, still has missiles fewer, but it can rebuild the production capacity and, of course, critically, a new huge advantage, the Strait of Hormuz, something that didn't exist before. Both Iran and the United States and others always came up to the line about the Strait of Hormuz. Many times in the past, there was always this question mark, and we always factored in, what might Iran do in the strait to make life really difficult. It never got to that. The Iranians never pulled the trigger on the strait because they thought that would invite an existential crisis and threat from the United States and others, Israel. And we always were very careful to make sure that we pushed things, but not so far that the strait would be endangered. Now, break glass moment that's happened, the net result is Iran emerges with tremendous leverage. And so I think the issue is the president has to decide whether he wants to, if there's no durable agreement reached in two weeks, either, as you said, go back to war. And that means, what does that mean? An escalation of air power, ground troops, highly risky, highly costly, or is there some kind of negotiation? And a negotiation that probably has to give something to the Iranians, including the possibility of continuing to collect tolls in the Strait of Hormuz and enriching themselves in the process, maybe sanctions relief. And that's why I say this looks right now like tactical success, but strategic failure.

[Fareed Zakaria]

So let's talk about those negotiations, because you have spent a long time, you were part of the jcpoa, the Obama nuclear deal. You tried to negotiate with them afterwards, during Biden, you tried to get them back into the deal. The Trump administration's position is no enrichment. Now, this has for a long time been the sticking point. The Iranians say we have a right to enrichment. We are signatories to the npt. Is there a compromise based on what you saw in the past, where they may be willing to forego that right or to assert it in theory, but not in practice?

[Antony Blinken]

Absolutely. And my understanding is, at various points over the last year and a half, in the discussions that the administration was having with the Iranians, the Iranians put something like that forward. It's not clear whether the folks we had at the table fully grasped what they were getting from the Iranians. We never conceded their right to enrich. But as a practical matter, under the JCPOA, we moved out 97% of their highly enriched uranium, but they retained some capacity at a very low level. And the net was this. They could claim that they continued to be able to enrich. We could say that they didn't have a right to enrich. But as a practical matter, they were doing it. And the main thing was the uranium they were enriching was kept at such a low level, in such a low quantity that had they decided to break out of the agreement, it would have taken them more than a year to produce enough of the fissile material that they needed for a nuclear weapon, a weapon, by the way, that they didn't have and still don't have. But the point is this, and you're right, yes, you could come to an agreement that gave the Iranians, in a sense, as a practical matter, the ability to continue enriching at very low levels with a very small stockpile doesn't concede the right, but gives them a face saver.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Next on gps, I will ask the former Secretary of State what advice he would give Donald Trump in the unlikely event the president asked for for his counsel.

[Claire Duffy]

I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service. I don't think I need to tell anyone that life these days is expensive. Now imagine that the cost you're charged is different from the cost your neighbor pays for the exact same product. Maybe because you have different budgets or shopping habits. It's actually happening a big shift. Is everyone seeing the same price tag in the store to now everyone's seeing prices on their private screens and companies having a ton of information about each of us. I'm talking to Grace Getty, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports. She has some tips on how to look out for automated pricing schemes and what we can all do about it. Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts.

[Fareed Zakaria]

When you came in as secretary of state in the Biden administration, there were many people in the administration saying you should now go back and join the Iran nuclear deal. Trump withdrew. You could easily go back in and who knows where. That could have taken us to a very different trajectory. Why did you guys not do it at the time?

[Antony Blinken]

So we tried and there were two fundamental problems. One was that because President Trump had torn up the agreement and the Iranians had sped ahead not only in producing more fissile material, but also developing and spinning more sophisticated centrifuges, the breakout time that we had under the Original Obama agreement, how much time to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon had gone from a year to, had we returned to the jcpoa, six or seven months. So we would have to decide whether is that good enough? Second, the Iranians having signed the agreement, having actually adhered to the agreement, and this is not just me saying it, it's not just the international inspector saying it. Our own intelligence concluded that they said to us, what guarantees do we have that another administration won't come along and do exactly what President Trump did the first term and tear it up. So they wanted some kind of guarantee, maybe congressional approval of the agreement as a treaty. Incredibly hard to do with our politics. So we were a little bit stuck on that, but we made pretty good progress. Then we have midterm elections. Very hard to do this in the context of a political election. After that, we started looking at a less for less agreement where we'd basically freeze things in place, freeze what they were producing, freeze their stockpile, freeze our sanctions, no new sanctions, as a way of at least holding things in abeyance and then having a roadmap for a longer and stronger agreement. Had there been a second term, that's where we would have gone.

[Fareed Zakaria]

In the Obama nuclear deal, you guys went to sign the agreement and with the full draft documents, everything agreed on, and it took like three or four weeks more of negotiating. Give us a sense as to what is it that happens with the Iranians. Like, why is it so hard for them? Do they have internal divisions? Is it that they bring up last minute demands?

[Antony Blinken]

So there are two things going on. Well, more than two things, but at least two things that I can think of. One is one of the biggest mistakes one makes about Iran is to see it as, especially then maybe now, unfortunately, a little bit different. But then certainly as a political monolith, it wasn't. There were factions, there are very different views. There are politics that were playing out in real time and making negotiations complicated, making concluding a final deal complicated, and lining up all of these folks in Iran on any final agreement wasn't easy. So that's part of it. But the other thing is these are master negotiators. And we've been hearing a lot about civilization in recent days. Well, this is a great civilization. And even this heinous regime has some of the positive attributes, in a sense of that civilization, which is an extraordinary track record of being able to negotiate, to be incredibly challenging to deal with. We tried to flip the script on them. I was, you know, doing a lot of the policy on this, but people like Wendy Sherman were leading the negotiations in the field, and. And we'd be talking all the time, and then John Kerry. And on several occasions, at least, we packed our bags, our delegation packed their bags, put them in the airplane, and said, okay, we're leaving. And then, oh, no, no, no, no. Come back, come back. So these endgames are really, really challenging.

[Fareed Zakaria]

The reporting out of the New York Times on how this decision to go to war was made is really quite stunning. And it really does seem that Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the White House with a video presentation and convinced Donald Trump that he would be a great man in history, a great liberator, if he did this. Did Prime Minister Netanyahu, at various points, try to convince the Obama administration, the Biden administration, to do things like this?

[Antony Blinken]

To my knowledge, he's tried to convince virtually every administration since he's been in office to do what President Trump finally did. He came to the Obama administration and tried this. He came to the Biden administration and tried this, and he finally found a willing customer in President Trump. But this was President Trump's decision. This wasn't Bibi Netanyahu's decision. It was President Trump's decision. Look, it's not that previous administrations, whether it was President Bush, whether it was President Obama, whether it was President Biden later, didn't take the challenges and threats posed by Iran deadly seriously. They did. The question that they posed was, what is the best way to deal with it when it came to President Biden? We had two extraordinary moments where Iran attacked Israel in April of 2024 and then again in September. And in each instance, we came to Israel's defense actively for the first time with American forces on the line. We rallied other countries in the region and beyond to do the same thing. But we also worked with the Israelis to cabin their response, to avoid getting to something that produced a huge escalation and in particular, calibrated in a way that the regime didn't think that it was being directly threatened. Because all of a sudden, if the regime thinks you're aiming to take it down, it becomes existential, and that's when they're likely to do pretty much anything. And then it becomes a fight for life, a fight for death. And under those circumstances, the Iranians have tremendous tenacity.

[Fareed Zakaria]

In the unlikely event that President Trump would call you in, what would you tell him? At this point, we are where we are. It has escalated beyond control. All those things have happened. What would you tell him now?

[Antony Blinken]

Don't go back to fighting. It's not going to be in our interest. It's going to do tremendous additional damage, tremendous additional risk and danger. But that threat is always there. But don't go back to that. Keep the pressure on the Iranians by other means. Try to bring other countries together in doing that and engage in diplomacy for however long it takes to get a deal. And a deal is going to involve some compromise. Decide where you're willing to compromise. Decide what you need to get. I think right now, from my perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is the most important thing because all of the ramifications that it has.

[Fareed Zakaria]

But that's a problem created by the war.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, it's the arsonist putting out the fire in this case. But I would put the focus there. And you've got to have strategic patience. And I think the record shows that this can be done. And the JCPOA is probably the best example of that. It can be done, but you've got to play the long game on this.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Tony Blinken, always a pleasure to hear from you.

[Antony Blinken]

Thanks for having me.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Next on gps, what do Gulf leaders make of this conflict and the fragile ceasefire with Iran? I'll speak to Harvard University Professor Tarek Massoud next.

[Commercial Announcer]

Not sure how to tackle your taxes? Are you sweating the small print? You may be experiencing FOMO, the fear of messing up the answer using TurboTax on Intuit credit Karma. They help you get your biggest refund and then we help you do more with it with a personalized plan designed to help you hit your money goal. It's time to take your taxes to the max. Start filing today in the Credit Karma app.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Since the beginning of the war with Iran, the Islamic Republic has repeatedly launched retaliatory strikes against America's Gulf Arab allies, countries like the uae, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. I want to dig into what this has done to relations between Washington and the Gulf. Has it weakened or strengthened them? Joining me now to discuss this is Harvard University professor and director of Harvard Kennedy School's Middle East Initiative, Tariq Massoud. Tariq, welcome. Tell us at the start of this war, what had the Gulf states been telling Washington?

[Commercial Announcer]

You know, there's a lot of reporting in the lead up or once the war started, when the narrative was that President Trump had been snookered into this war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that in fact the Saudi crown prince, who's the de facto leader of that country, had also been pushing the president to get into this war. My understanding from talking to some of my Saudi sources and talking to Gulf sources more broadly is they actually did not want a war. There was definitely a spectrum of Gulf opinion with respect to Iran. And that spectrum is anchored on the one side by Oman, which has basically been a mediator with Iran and lately has almost sounded a bit like the Iranians lawyer. And then on the other end of the spectrum by Bahrain, which has a large Shia population that the Iranians sometimes incite. And for more than a decade, they've had no diplomatic relations with Iran. But all the other countries were somewhere in the middle of this spectrum and broadly not wanting conflict. The war that started basically on October 7th to come to their shores and disrupt their region.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And the Saudis normalized relations with them in 23, I think. Yes, and had a kind of modus vivendi.

[Commercial Announcer]

Yes, absolutely. That was a Chinese brokered agreement. And it got the Saudis relief from the periodic Houthi rocket attacks that they were experiencing. And so, yes, the Saudi sort of attitude had been one of lessening the temperature, lowering the temperature between them and Tehran. Now today, the story's different, okay? If you look at that spectrum again, I mean, the Omanis are still kind of where they are, but. But countries like Qatar, the uae, which, you know, had a lot of trade and traffic with Iran, they have received a lot of Iranian fire, ostensibly because they host US Military bases. So everybody's kind of shifted towards the, you know, anti Iranian end of the spectrum. But here's the thing. There are two outcomes they want to avoid. The one outcome is an Iran that controls the Strait of Hormuz and that retains missile capacity and drone capacity to continue to threaten Gulf states, they definitely want to avoid that outcome. The other outcome they want to avoid is a failed state, okay? And when theyyou know, which could be a place of civil war, flooding them with refugees, you could have warlords like you had in Syria who start producing narcotics and shipping them to the Gulf. And here's the thing. When they look at the Americans, when you have a president who says, oh, you know, maybe we'll have the Strait of Hormuz be a joint venture between me and the Ayatollah, makes you think, oh, so could America be okay with the first bad case scenario? Or when you have advisers or people adjacent to the current administration saying things like, we're going to arm Iranians or we're going to arm the Kurds to bring down the regime, you think, you know, it looks like America could accommodate itself to these two outcomes that are absolutely anathema. To most of the Gulf countries.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And in a sense, the civil war scenario could mean the militia start fighting with them. I mean, again, there are Shias in Saudi Arabia. There are Shias in Bahrain, as you say.

[Commercial Announcer]

Absolutely. In the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, it's about 30%, maybe a Shia Bahrain, about half Shia. And yes, you could imagine that this would result in some domestic instability as well.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What has this done to the Gulf states view of America? Do they think that being American allies and having bases is an asset, or did it actually make them vulnerable to these attacks?

[Commercial Announcer]

Well, you definitely see this, you know, sort of among those who are maybe more friendly to Iran. They say, look, you Gulf countries put these or allowed these bases to situate themselves on your territory, thinking that it would protect you. But in fact, the reason you're taking all of this fire is because of these bases. So as you say, the American bases are a liability. America is not an asset. It's a liability. The fact of the matter is that, you know, one could argue that these countries would have experienced a much more difficult security situation had there not been the American guarantee. But broadly, there are and have always been two camps in the Gulf in most Gulf countries with respect to the United States. On the one hand, there's what I'd call the pro American camp, okay? And this is mainly the leadership of most of these countries are pro American. They remember America's defense of Kuwait in 1990, 1991, and they put all of the. Want to put all of their eggs in the American basket. They, you know, not just in terms of military, but also in terms of trade, in terms of even the way they structure their institutions. Okay? There's another camp which has always been there. It's in every Arab country. And I'd call it the non aligned camp, the camp that says we should diversify our relationships, we should not be a client of the United States, we should go to the Chinese, etc. That latter camp is definitely ascendant. And then finally. And then I'll be quiet. I do think one of the things that the Gulf countries are rethinking is their relationship with Trump. There was nowhere on this planet, except for Trump Tower, that greeted Trump's victory in his second term with greater joy than in the Gulf. They felt we understand him, he respects us. And now when they see the degree of chaos and also the degree, the lack of concern that the Trump administration seems to have with their views, I think they're starting to rethink. And I think in the future they'll try to diversify their relationships within the United States as well.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Tariq Massoud, always so good to hear from you. Thank you. Next up, we will talk about energy markets. Is oil going to hit 125, 150 next? I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. Dr. Pasricha.

[Antony Blinken]

The book is called you'd've Been Pooping All Wrong.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And part of me felt like I needed to cover the title a little bit because I didn't want anyone asking me.

[Claire Duffy]

I think this topic has been stigmatized for so long with that title, I really wanted to just say it up front, say it loudly and hope to try to destigmatize something that we're all worried about. 40% of Americans struggle with their bowel habits every day. That's a huge number. And this is not people. These are not people who have a diagnosis per se. They don't necessarily have a labeled condition, but their bowel habits just interfere with their daily lives. I think we should change that because it doesn't have to be that way.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Commercial Announcer]

The relationship between the FBI director and the president has always been complicated. Unravel the complex dynamic in the CNN original standoff, the FBI power and paranoia. Now streaming on the CNN app.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What will a US Blockade do to oil prices and what will it do to the global economy? What is it already doing? Joining me now is Karen Young. She's a senior research scholar at the center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Karen, so first of all, tell us, where do things stand right now? It does seem like the, the markets are assuming that this will all resolve itself because the price of oil isn't actually that high. Given what's happening, the price of oil

[Karen Young]

isn't as high as we might expect it to be. That's exactly right. And there's also a lot of difference between the futures market and what's being sold sort of ready to go barrels or the spot market. And I think there's some wishful thinking of, you know, the, the ability to encourage, you know, more transit of barrels through the Strait of Hormuz. That's obviously not resolved. And so since the beginning of this crisis, we've thought about sort of two variables. One is the duration of the conflict and the duration of the impediment to transit and the damage to oil and gas infrastructure in the region. So those two things are actually getting more serious and more detrimental to higher prices.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And what does the blockade do in that sense situation.

[Karen Young]

So the blockade creates this extra layer. We had basically a diversion of the blocked oil supply going through the pipeline in Saudi Arabia, about 7 million barrels a day there. The pipeline in the UAE, about 1.8 million barrels, and the Iranians themselves exporting about 1.6 million barrels a day. And the Omanis avoiding the Strait completely. If we have a blockade, we still have the problem of a shortage in the market of about 7 million barrels of crude oil, 4 million barrels of product not getting out. And we just added to that by making the Iranian barrels off the market.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Because the Iranian barrels won't get through.

[Antony Blinken]

Exactly.

[Fareed Zakaria]

So price of oil, probably tomorrow will go up.

[Karen Young]

Probably tomorrow will be another Monday where we had the sort of softening comments towards the end of the week by the Trump administration, the announcement of the cease fire. And now, again, a bit of a shock.

[Fareed Zakaria]

President Trump says when this is all over, oil prices will go down. What's your reaction to that when this is over?

[Karen Young]

It could be a long time from now. And that entails, you know, the resumption of traffic, no real damage to oil production, infrastructure or lng, and some sort of accommodating government in Iran. Those are huge variables which are really, really unsolved. So I think for now and into the end of 2026, we're looking at elevated oil prices for certain, elevated LNG prices for certain, because of this sort of time it takes to restart. And of course, the unknown of traffic flows getting in and out of the Strait.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Now, the crisis in Asia is very acute. I mean, in Sri Lanka, you know, they've shortened the school week. In Thailand, they're telling government employees, don't take elevators. People are being told, don't use air conditioning. Is it going to get worse in Europe? I mean, the US Is probably fine, but in places like Europe, well, we're not fine.

[Karen Young]

I mean, these prices are global. And so we are going to see inflationary pressure both on transit fuels and on food in the U.S. but, yes, Asia has felt the pinch. First, any economy that is heavily dependent on energy exports, Philippines, Malaysia, you name it down the list. As you mentioned, those economies are hit the most, especially those also that use LPG as a cooking fuel. So it's not just in crude or diesel and jet fuel. What we'll see in the coming week or two to Europe is really this jet fuel crunch and refined products. So this is spreading and it creates inflationary pressures that the whole global economy has to deal with. It also encourages countries to think about basically hoarding or not, you know, sharing supply. And those countries that have the benefit of stockpiles, South Korea, Japan, even India, are going to be better off because they can shield their populations from some of that initial shock. Poor economies can't do that.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And finally, it's not just oil, right? This is because petroleum products are part of fertilizer, cement, I mean just plastics, you name it. Computer chips can't be made without them.

[Karen Young]

That's right. So we're going to start seeing that inflationary pressure not just in transit but in fuel because of products like sulfur and ammonia, nitrogen that go into the construction of fertilizers. But also anything you use that has a pet chem or polymer kind of base plastics packaging and that increases food costs too, is going to be tough. So think about everything you buy at a retail big box store, it has some component that originally came from hydrocarbon.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And this will not get better until at best 2027, I think.

[Karen Young]

Yes. I mean looking at the time to restart oil production that has been shut in, that adds weeks if not months and assumes that we get to some sort of normal level of traffic flows through the Strait. That 7 million barrel a day crude deficit, 4 million barrel a day product deficit is not relieved until the Strait is open.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Karen, pleasure to hear from you. Thank you. Next on gps. President Trump seems to be willing to use the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical football. But is that predatory approach what the United States should be doing? I will bring you my take next.

[Commercial Announcer]

Spring fest is heating up at Lowe's and for a limited time we have the extra big deals you need to impress guests. Get your outdoor space ready and save $50 on a select Cobalt 24 volt blower kit now $79 plus save $80 on the Char Broil Performance 4 burner grill now $199. It's springtime and our best lineup is here at Lowe's, valid through 413 while supplies last selection varies by location.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Here's my take. It's a beautiful thing, Donald Trump said recently, musing about a joint venture with Iran to act as the gatekeepers of the Strait of Hormuz. The same day he posted on Truth Social. Big money will be made dealing with the traffic buildup there. These are revealing remarks not because they are outrageous. Trump has said many outrageous things, but because they distill a worldview. They suggest a shift in how the United States might see its role not as the guarantor of a system, but but as the participant in a deal. For most of its history, the US has taken a different view. Freedom of navigation has been treated not as a privilege to be sold, but as a right to be defended. The young Republic's first military intervention, the Quasi War with France, was fought in part over interference with American shipping. Soon after, the US Confronted the Barbary pirates, refusing to pay tribute for safe passage and instead using force to establish the principle that commerce should move freely across the seas. That commitment deepened over time. In the modern era, the United States has patrolled the world's oceans, ensuring that critical chokepoints from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca remain open. It has done so at great expense, not to extract tolls, but to but to sustain a global commons. Open seas would underpin open trade, which in turn would foster growth, stability, and ultimately peace. That is not how Donald Trump thinks. In his view, the Strait of Hormuz is not a global artery, but an asset, something to be monetized. Why provide security as a public good when it can be turned into a business venture? Why underwrite a system when you can charge admission? This instinct runs deeper than a few words. It reflects his broader worldview that sees international relations less as the management of a shared order and of values, and more as a series of transactions. In that world, every commitment is negotiable, every alliance conditional, every public good a potential profit center. After World War II, the US emerged not just as the most powerful nation on earth, but as the architect of an international system built on rules, openness, and cooperation. Washington promoted free trade, supported multilateral institutions, and maintained a security umbrella that extended far beyond its shores. It didn't do so out of altruism, but because it understood that such a system would serve its interests. And they did. A world of open markets and secure sea lanes allowed global commerce to flourish. With the United States at its center. American companies thrived. The dollar became the dominant currency, keeping interest rates low for Americans as the country has borrowed more and more from foreigners. US Influence extended across continents, not through coercion, but through attraction and interdependence. And when Washington did coerce, its power often shrank rather than grew. All this required a certain mentality. It meant looking beyond immediate gains to long term advantages. It meant accepting that some investments in security and institutions and alliances would not yield quick returns, but would pay dividends over decades. It meant understanding that legitimacy and trust are strategic assets. Trump's approach flips that logic. It prioritizes the immediate over the enduring, the tangible over the intangible. If allies can be bullied into paying more, that's a win. If trade partners can be squeezed for concessions, that's success. If strategic commitments can be turned into revenue streams, so much the better. The costs in diminished credibility, frayed alliances, lost trust, and a weakened overall system are diffused and deferred. The gains are immediate and visible. The scholar Stephen Walt has called this behavior that of a predatory hegemon. The truth is, most hegemons were predatory. Great powers have taxed trade routes, extracted tribute, and leveraged dominance for direct gain. Rome did it, the Habsburgs did it, Napoleon's France and imperial Germany did it. Even Britain, often seen as liberal, ruled its empire in ways that enriched the metropole. What made the United States different was not that it lacked self interest, but that it pursued it in a broader way. It built a system others could join because it offered wide benefits. It restrained its power even as it exercised, chose, in other words, to be an enlightened hegemon, one that understood that the surest way to sustain dominance was to make it acceptable. That choice is now in question. To treat the Strait of Hormuz as a toll boot rather than a global commons is to misunderstand both history and strategy. The US Benefits most not from charging per shift for access, but from building a world in which commerce flows freely and Washington's central position is reinforced. To abandon that model for short term extraction is to trade a durable advantage for a fleeting gain. If the US Becomes just another predatory hegemon, it will discover what history has long shown. Such power is feared, resented, and ultimately resisted. And in time it is not sustained but overTurned. Go to fareedzakharia.com for a link to my Washington Post column this week. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

[Commercial Announcer]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail]

[Claire Duffy]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month

[Commercial Announcer]

required intro rate first 3 months only then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

See full [e-mail] influential journalist Kara Swisher is taking a hard look at the longevity industry.

[Karen Young]

There's so much bad information that the really good information gets drowned.

[Commercial Announcer]

The news is CNN Original Series. Kara Swisher wants to live forever now streaming on the CNN app.