Transcript
A (0:04)
Hope for the best, expect the worst Some drinks and pain Some die of thirst no way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best, Expect the worst, Hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Tuesday, April 14, 2026. I am Jon Pod Horiz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.
B (0:35)
Hi, John.
A (0:36)
Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
C (0:38)
Hi, John.
A (0:39)
And Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.
D (0:43)
Hi, John.
A (0:46)
Okay, so just get Iran out of the way very quickly. Story been circulating for the last 18 hours that the United States offered Iran a deal where they would suspend enrichment for 20 years in exchange for a deal, and the Iranians came back with five years. And I do not believe this story to be true. And I'm just going to explain why. Three major sources, three major outlets have reported this story. One was Axios through Barack Ravid yesterday morning. Then someone in the New York Post reported it yesterday afternoon and it is in the New York Times. And the lead story this morning, which was released sometime early evening yesterday, in every one of those stories, the story is sourced to an American official, one American official, which would lead me to believe, based on my experience and I think Eliana, as a former, you know, line reporter on these matters, you can kind of guess it's the same American official if there's one and only one. And somebody wants to retail the idea that the United States was offering a deal where the Iranians could enrich in 20 years and that the Iranians offered five and that somehow we implicitly were unreasonable in not trying to negotiate more. The reason I think this is a lie is that it is too close to the JCPOA, which had a 10 year window suspending enrichment and then allowing enrichment. Trump said that was the worst deal ever struck. Maybe you could make the argument that 20 years would be a better deal than 10, but nonetheless, that is what the story says. But J.D. vance went on with Bret Baier last night and essentially blew up the story. He said, we have two red lines, one red line, which is kind of a interesting gloss on where we thought we were, which is they can never have a nuclear weapon. It's not just that they can't have a nuclear weapon. He said, point number one is we need the dust. What they're referring to as the dust that is the 800, supposedly 800 pounds of enriched uranium that the Iranians have. We need it, we need to secure it, we need to come into possession of it. And second, that they never Get a nuclear weapon. So if we're getting all of their enriched uranium, yes, in theory, they could then start a new program or clandestine program to make more. But if our hardline position that we would not move off of in a negotiation that Vance actually said was oddly promising, according to him, there was a lot of movement and there was a lot of conversation, but that the negotiators on the Iranian side actually were not in a position to make a deal. They did not have the authority to make a deal. And so this negotiation ended in part because it's not clear that they would ever have been able to make a deal. The line is harder than, I mean, 20 year enrichment, enrichment. We are now claiming that we will not consider a deal with Iran until Iran agrees to give us all of its uranium, enriched at 1%, enriched at 3%, enriched at 60%, enriched at 200%, all of it. The dust to be kept at Mar a Lago in the basement with the files. Right, okay, so that's. So in fact, the negotiations were harder. Our line was harder than this. And it does call into question the whole idea that we were negotiating on the basis of allowing the Iranians the face saving. Right. At some point to enrich uranium. Vance said Trump wants Iran to be a normal country with a normal economy that will help its people, but not one that will ever have a nuclear weapon. Therefore, 20 years is 100 years or a thousand years. And so I think this, we can, like, try to figure out why somebody is retelling this story, that we put this on the table. Maybe we put it on the table facetiously at some point. Like, well, what if we said 20 years? Would that help you? Or something like that? You know, like, not really, but in the way that people, you know, throw things around. But again, we only have one source, a single source, and it's obviously the same source. Eliana, do you agree with me that it's the same source? If you literally have three different things saying a official, an official, not even a current official, an administration official, an intelligence official, a, a diplomatic official, an official.
