Trump Says He’s Ready for Diplomacy. Iran? Not So Much.

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Daily

Episode: Trump Says He’s Ready for Diplomacy. Iran? Not So Much.

Date: March 30, 2026
Host: Michael Barbaro
Guest: David Sanger (NYT National Security Correspondent)

---

Overview

This episode examines the growing divide between the Trump administration’s push for diplomatic negotiations to end the war with Iran and Iran’s continued resistance. Michael Barbaro and David Sanger unpack the conflicting public statements, look at the on-the-ground reality in both Washington and Tehran, and explore why each side is taking its stance, as well as the broader geopolitical consequences for the U.S., Iran, and Israel.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Conflicting Claims of Diplomacy

• Timestamps: [01:27] – [03:57]
• President Trump claims the U.S. and Iran are involved in “very good and productive conversations”—implying negotiations toward peace.
• Iran directly denies any talks, with Sanger observing that “both were fibbing to some considerable degree” ([02:50]). Each side is posturing for leverage:

  "The president wants to make it sound as if he has forced the Iranians... to finally come to the negotiating table. The Iranians... are not coming to the negotiating table on America's terms." – David Sanger [02:53]

• The reality: The U.S. is maneuvering toward negotiations but true talks have not begun.

Why Trump Is Seeking Diplomacy Now

• Timestamps: [03:57] – [05:34]
• Despite heavy strikes against Iran (11,000 targets hit), key U.S. objectives—regime change, regional stability—remain unfulfilled.
• The war has snarled the Strait of Hormuz and global energy supply, and U.S. allies aren’t heeding Trump’s call for support.
• Trump faces pressure from economic fallout and absence of military gains, prompting a desire for a “diplomatic off ramp.”

The Content and Reception of U.S. Outreach to Iran

• Timestamps: [05:34] – [07:51]
• U.S. offer: A two-page, 15-point proposal (12 demands, 3 incentives).
  • Main U.S. Demands:
    • Iran must permanently cease nuclear fuel enrichment
    • Drastically reduce missile arsenal, especially those threatening Israel
  • Main Incentive:
    • Lifting of sanctions to re-integrate Iran into the global economy
• Iran’s reply:
  • Five-point counter-proposal
  • Demands compensation for inflicted damages and U.S. recognition of Iranian authority over the Strait of Hormuz

  “The response was kind of a non-response, Michael.” – David Sanger [06:42]

U.S. Negotiation Strategy & Key Players

• Timestamps: [07:51] – [09:58]
• U.S. signals seriousness by proposing Vice President J.D. Vance as chief negotiator (previously skeptical of war, which may boost his credibility).
• Multiple intended audiences: Iranians (seriousness), domestic political base (reassurance), Trump administration (control).

U.S.–Israel Divergence

• Timestamps: [09:58] – [12:56]
• U.S. wants an Iranian government stable enough for future negotiations.
• Israel prioritizes complete incapacitation of Iran to prevent future aggression, even if that leads to chaos.

  “The differing objectives of the U.S. and Israel have become more and more evident.” – David Sanger [10:33]

• Meanwhile, military actions continue. Both sides escalate even as talks are discussed.

Why Iran Refuses Negotiations Now

• Timestamps: [14:27] – [17:09]
• Deep distrust: Iran sees talks as a cover for U.S.-Israeli attacks, citing two major offensive periods during prior negotiation attempts.

  “The Iranians are saying, 'We’re not going to listen to what you say. We’re going to look at what you do.'” – David Sanger [16:27]

• U.S. troop deployments reinforce Iranian suspicions.

The Psychology and Strategy of Iran’s Delay

• Timestamps: [17:09] – [19:35]
• National pride and political strategy:
  • Extending conflict may unify Iran’s populace against an external enemy, despite regime unpopularity.
  • Draw-out conflict inflicts economic/political pain on Trump, increasing Iran’s potential leverage.

  “Time buys the Iranians the ability to hurt Donald Trump where it counts the most... watching markets slide, oil prices go up, international anxiety increase...” – David Sanger [19:35]

Prospects for Future Negotiations

• Timestamps: [20:46] – [22:54]
• Iran hopes to force U.S. concessions, particularly on uranium enrichment rights:
  • U.S. wants Iran to permanently renounce enrichment.
  • Iran seeks a deal allowing some enrichment, as under the 2015 Obama accord.

  “If the Trump administration agreed to that, it would be a big backing away from their position.” – David Sanger [22:31]

War’s Incentive for Nuclearization

• Timestamps: [22:54] – [23:58]
• Heavy U.S. attacks increase Iran’s incentive to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent (citing U.S. avoidance of confrontation with nuclear-armed North Korea).

  "We may have just given Iran every incentive to follow the North Korean model." – David Sanger [23:58]

Lessons from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal

• Timestamps: [23:58] – [28:20]
• 2015’s nuclear accord showed successful, if fraught, U.S.-Iran diplomacy.
• Trust is now even lower, and issues have multiplied (beyond just nuclear concerns).
• Today's negotiations, if they happen, would be “wildly more complicated”:

  “Now we’re negotiating over their future survivability as a state. And that is completely existential for the Iranians.” – David Sanger [27:47]

• War has unleashed unknown political forces in Iran; outcomes are deeply unpredictable.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On public posturing:

  “Who are you going to believe here, the president of the United States or the Iranian government? And in this case, I would not really believe either.” – David Sanger [02:53]

• On divergence of U.S. and Israeli goals:

  “Israel really isn’t concerned about almost any of [Trump’s concerns]. To them, the one question here is, at the end of this process, is Iran so defanged that it couldn’t even think of striking beyond its borders again?” – David Sanger [10:33]

• On why Iran resists negotiations:

  "We’re not going to listen to what you say. We’re going to look at what you do." – David Sanger [16:27]

• On U.S. tactics:

  “In the Trump administration, there’s a more general view that force isn’t necessarily the last resort. It could be an early tool before you come back for negotiations… I’m not sure adversaries always see it the same way.” – David Sanger [17:27]

• On lasting impact of this conflict:

  “There’s no chance that we can go back to the kind of negotiation that took place in 2015… Now we’re negotiating over their future survivability as a state.” – David Sanger [27:47]

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:27 – Is the U.S. negotiating with Iran? Public confusion and conflicting claims.
• 03:57 – Why Trump wants a diplomatic off ramp now.
• 05:34 – Details of the U.S. proposal and Iran’s non-response.
• 09:58 – Split between U.S. and Israeli objectives.
• 14:27 – Why Iran refuses negotiations: the trust gap.
• 19:10 – Iran’s strategy: buying time for political and economic leverage.
• 22:54 – The risk of pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons.
• 23:58 – Lessons from the 2015 nuclear accord, and why today’s talks are even harder.

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a picture of two adversaries locked not just in battle, but also in a psychological contest, each using negotiation talk as leverage. U.S. military strategies and shifting incentives are met by Iranian doubts and deliberate delays, all while external players like Israel continue to attack, making diplomacy harder. History, pride, and shifting realities ensure that any diplomatic solution now will be far more complex than anything seen before—and the world is watching to see how (or if) these dueling narratives can ever be reconciled.

Transcript

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Self directed investing, trading, full service wealth management, automated investing, financial planning, thematic investing, retirement planning.

[Michael Barbaro]

Whew.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And to think that's just a small taste of what Schwab offers. Because Schwab knows when it comes to your finances, choice matters. No matter your goals, investing style, life, stage or experience, Schwab has everything you need all in one place so you can invest your way. Visit schwab.com to learn more

[Michael Barbaro]

from the New York Times. I'm Michael Balbaro. This is the Daily. Despite his threats of escalation, President Trump seems increasingly determined to end the conflict in Iran through negotiations. His problem? Iran isn't on the same page

[David Sanger]

today.

[Michael Barbaro]

David Sanger on the standoff over when to turn from war to diplomacy. It's Monday, march 30th.

Mr. Sanger, thank you for making time for us on a Sunday of all days.

[David Sanger]

Great to be with you, Michael. What a month.

[Michael Barbaro]

Yes, indeed. And it's been exactly, pretty much a month since this war began. And David, I want to start with what should be a simple yes or no question under ordinary circumstances, but there's open debate about it and genuine confusion. Is the United States currently negotiating with Iran to bring this war to an end?

[David Sanger]

Well, as you suggest, Michael, it's a more complicated question than it sounds like. And I would say the simple answer is that the United States is engaging in operations right now to shape a negotiation with Iran. But I wouldn't say the negotiations have yet started.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, let me highlight some of the source of the confusion. Last week, we had this very explicit claim from President Trump. I'm going to quote him. I am pleased to report that the United States of America and the country of Iran have had very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East. Okay, that's, that's an explicit claim of negotiation. A few hours later, Iran's government issues a statement that says the precise opposite. Quote, we deny what US President Donald Trump said regarding any negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[David Sanger]

So they were both fibbing to some considerable degree, huh? Both. President, aren't you shocked? Who are you going to believe here, the president of the United States or the Iranian government? And in this case, I would not really believe either. The president wants to make it sound as if he has forced the Iranians through the show of brute strength that has resulted in 11,000 targets being hit to finally come to the negotiating table. The Iranians want to show, for reasons of national pride and good strategy at this moment that they are not coming to the negotiating table on America's terms. And so we're at a bit of a standoff in which the Iranians are fundamentally saying, hey, we're winning by virtue of the fact that we're still alive. And the President is in the unusual position here of having to move from calling for an unconditional surrender to calling for some kind of talks.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[David Sanger]

And talks almost always mean compromise.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, let's focus for a little bit on why the President seems so invested in a diplomatic off ramp to this war. Because despite striking 11,000 targets in Iran, the US has discovered not just the limits of its military force in Iran, but the blowback and how problematic it's become. And just to summarize what we have established in previous episodes, the Iranian regime is badly diminished, but it's not collapsing. Regime change is not in the offing at the moment. The war has locked up the straight of Hormuz and paralyzed the global energy industry. Economic repercussions of this war have grown week by week. And US Allies are not answering Trump's call to get involved. So Trump is looking for a diplomatic way to end all of those problems.

[David Sanger]

Yeah, he has put himself in a real box here where he has discovered, as you suggest, that the kind of military power that he's exercised has not brought about the kind of political result that he envisioned. And it certainly hasn't brought it about in the time period he had in mind that he can do all of this bombing, but it doesn't necessarily lead to regime change, that he can try to speed along a capitulation. But if the Iranians play it right, the economic impact just keeps snowballing.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, David, with that in mind, help us understand what the US Efforts to bring Iran to the negotiating table, as messy as they've been so far, what they actually look like, kind of technically speaking, what the U.S. outreach has been.

[David Sanger]

Well, Michael, the outreach so far has pretty much been limited to a two page document that had 15 items on it. Twelve of them were demands on Iran and three of them were offers to Iran. But the essence of them is this, Michael, that Iran gives up any hope of ever being able to enrich nuclear fuel, do any of the steps that could lead to a nuclear weapon, that it limit its arsenal of missiles to a very limited number that can't reach Israel. And in return, the US has provided some incentives, starting with the lifting of sanctions that would give Iran a pathway to reentering the global international economy.

[Michael Barbaro]

Got it. And what has Iran's response been to that 15 point proposal.

[David Sanger]

You know, the response was kind of a non response, Michael. It was five of their own points that basically started with, let's talk about compensation for all of the damage you've done to Iran's infrastructure and people over the past month. And oh, by the way, we want you to recognize our sovereignty over the entire Strait of Hormuz, which we think is a pathway to expanding what the Iranians have been doing in recent days, which is charging a very large toll for any ships that want to make it through.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. That doesn't sound like two sides being anywhere near close to even agreeing on what they're negotiating.

[David Sanger]

That's right. And it might explain why you've heard the president move from making the case that the Iranians want to talk to making the case that if the Iranians don't talk, he's going to hit them even harder. But behind the scenes, the US Is thinking ahead toward what a negotiation would look like. And in fact, they had hoped that one might begin as early as this weekend, but it didn't happen.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, to the degree that the US Has a plan for negotiation and assumes that at some point in this conflict there will be a negotiation, who do they see as being the face of these negotiations for the US and what would that negotiator be empowered to get and give up?

[David Sanger]

Well, they haven't said precisely who would participate in the negotiations, but what they have dangled is that J.D. vance, the vice president, would lead the effort. And administration officials have said to me that this is an effort to signal to the Iranians that this is a serious conversation, that we're sending the country's number two official empowered to make decisions and to get President Trump on the phone on one ring to actually negotiate. And what's fascinating about this is we haven't seen Vice President Vance involved in any of the negotiations to this point. And of course, it's Vance who is widely reported to have been the least enthusiastic about getting into a conflict with Iran to begin with.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. Does the fact that he has been skeptical of this war potentially give him greater credibility in bringing it to an end, or is this simply just the fact that he's the number two in our system that's supposed to lend some prestige and credibility to the idea of him as a negotiator?

[David Sanger]

I think it's all of the above, Michael. The Iranians view him as probably the one they'd most like to talk to because they think he opposed this idea from the start. I think to President Trump, it's an opportunity to show to the Iranians that he's serious about these talks. And I think the third message that it sends is actually to the MAGA base. It's don't worry, this is under control. JD Vance, who was the most outspoken in favor of staying out of foreign wars, is the one we've put in charge of ending this one.

[Michael Barbaro]

It seems difficult to close out the conversation about the US Plans for negotiation without mentioning Israel, its partner in this entire operation. And my sense is that Israel's enthusiasm for ending this war may not be the same as President Trump's, because Israel has simply more going on in this conflict. It's got ground troops in Lebanon, even as it's also continuing to assault Iran. It has more of an agenda in this conflict.

[David Sanger]

In a way, with every passing week of this war, the differing objectives of the US And Israel have become more and more evident to us. President Trump is obviously quite concerned about the effects on the stock market, the effects of oil and gas not making it through the Strait of Hormuz, the backlash that he's getting from the Europeans, from Asian allies. Israel really isn't concerned about almost any of those, right to them. The one question here is, at the end of this process, is Iran so defanged that it couldn't even think of striking beyond its borders again? The US has an interest in an Iranian government emerging from this that is at least cohesive enough to make decisions and engage in international negotiations. The Israelis might be perfectly happy with sheer chaos that would then lead to enough social upheaval in Iran that it would overthrow the current regime. And better yet, as far as the Israelis are concerned, might result in such internal upheaval that Iran can't even think about Israel. But what's really interesting to me, Michael, is that while this dance takes place about whether and where and when negotiations would take place, the Israelis are using every available minute to hit more targets across Iran. On Friday, they went after a number of nuclear sites, and the Iranians, for their part, are using every moment to go after American targets in the Gulf. And they had one big success from their point of view, which is they took out two major American aircraft, one a in air refueling aircraft and the other one of these command centers that cost half a billion dollars or more that are used to go defend the Gulf against incoming drones and missile. And they did that on the same day that they were exchanging messages about where negotiations may take place,

[Michael Barbaro]

which sounds like the opposite of Iran getting ready for negotiations.

[David Sanger]

Well, it could be, or it could be a negotiating gambit in itself.

[Michael Barbaro]

We'll be right back.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Today's episode is supported by the Persistence Lab, a podcast from AbbVie. The show explores what happens when science meets real human resilience. Each episode highlights a challenge in medicine or healthcare, and the people who refuse to give up. Hear from scientists, experts and patients as they share important moments and motivations that inspire progress and contribute to the future of care. If you're curious about what's really happening behind the scenes in health and science, search the Persistence Lab. Wherever you listen to podcasts, this podcast

[Sponsor Voice]

is supported by Hers. With so much noise around weight loss trends, opinions, medications, it's hard to know what's actually right for you. Hers can help. If prescribed, your personalized treatment plan supports you in reaching your goals. With access to 24. 7 support, nutrition tips and tools for tracking movement, hydration and sleep. Feel like your best self again? Visit fourhers.com thedaily to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's f o rherhes.com thedaily Weight loss by hers is not available everywhere. Prescription required. See website for full details, important safety information and restrictions.

[Michael Barbaro]

This podcast is supported by nrdc, the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Trump administration just carried out the largest environmental rollback in American history. They eliminated the endangerment, finding a core scientific and legal foundation for tackling climate pollution. This is illegal and NRDC is suing to stop them. For a short time, listeners of the Daily will have their gift matched to support their legal challenge. Go to nrdc.org daily David as I think we pretty clearly established here, Iran's position at this moment is basically saying to the U.S. good luck with your negotiated end of this war. You started it, we're not going to help you quickly end it. And you had suggested at the beginning of this conversation that that could be a function of pride or strategy. Let's try to get to the bottom of that question. If President Trump is offering Iran an end to a daily barrage of attacks that took out its supreme leader, have decimated its military, have crippled a lot infrastructure, why isn't Iran somewhat eager to take up that offer?

[David Sanger]

You know, Michael, this is a question the president seems to ask his aides very regularly, which is why haven't they capitulated yet? And I think the answer is complicated. But the first part of it is that the surviving Iranian leadership ask the question, why should we trust them in the negotiations? Back in June of last year, they were engaged in negotiations and it got cut short by the attack on Fordo Natanz And Isfahan, the three major nuclear sites. Yep, that's right. In February, they were negotiating on a broader agreement, and suddenly the Israelis and the Americans team up on what was clearly a well planned, well coordinated attack on the entire country. Right.

[Michael Barbaro]

Negotiations are kind of a cover for the US to attack Iran and to

[David Sanger]

buy the time to assemble the forces. And so the Iranians are saying, we're not going to listen to what you say. We're going to look at what you do. And currently, what they're seeing is that the US Is sending thousands of more troops to the region, starting with two Marine Expeditionary Units. And so from the Iranian point of view, they're looking at this and thinking, well, the President is building up to another attack while he's urging us to negotiate.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. Here we go again.

[David Sanger]

Yeah. Right. And of course, Michael, we don't know if the President is actually planning to go use these troops or whether he's just using them for leverage for whenever those negotiations start up.

[Michael Barbaro]

Dave, can I ask you, because you've covered a lot of diplomacy in your day, is it understood that if you attack people not once but twice during formal negotiations, you're really disincentivizing them from ever seeing diplomacy as anything other than a Trojan horse?

[David Sanger]

Well, in most administrations I've covered, and this is the fifth president I've covered, that would have been the case. But in the Trump administration, I think there's sort of a more general view that force isn't necessarily the last resort. It could be an early tool that you use before you come back for negotiations a second time and say, well, want that again, want worse. And so I think that this administration views the use of force as truly an element of the negotiations. I'm not sure that their adversaries always see it the same way.

[Michael Barbaro]

Okay, so that's a major reason why Iran would be reluctant to engage in negotiations. But beyond that, what does Iran gain from the war lasting any longer, given that the pain of it is so disproportionately felt by that government?

[David Sanger]

Well, there could be an element of pride to this, as we suggested, and this is a deeply unpopular government probably at any given point in time, as we've discussed on past episodes, something like 80% of Iranians would give you a long list of complaints about economic mismanagement, corruption, and the sheer brutality of the Iranian government. Right. So the. The idea that foreign actors are coming in to attack the core of the society, terrorize ordinary Iranians who are just trying to get by, the surviving Iranian leadership may see that as A way to go unify a populace that otherwise hates them.

[Michael Barbaro]

Interesting. So not necessarily just pride, but kind of a strategic understanding that the longer the war goes on, the more likely it is that that Iranians alienated from this regime, might start to look to it as a source of strength or see it as the victim of U.S. excess. And in that sense, time is just on their side.

[David Sanger]

Well, that's right. And there's another thing that time buys the Iranians the ability to hurt Donald Trump where it counts the most. Watching markets slide, watching oil prices go up, watching international anxiety increase, watching the Western alliance fracture. And all of that takes time. So take a look at what happened just at the end of last week. The president late on Thursday said that he was going to allow another 10 days for negotiations to take place. And you might expect the markets to jump the next day, saying, oh, there's an ending to this coming. Instead, the markets kept their meltdown underway. The President is now presiding over what people are going to begin to call the Trump slump or the Iran slump. And the Iranians understand that if the markets continue to melt down, if the price of oil continues to go up, that only gives them more leverage whenever negotiations begin.

[Michael Barbaro]

David, just play that out. So let's presume that the 15 point proposal from Trump is actually something that represents the US Position in any negotiations. And Iran has the war play out for a few more weeks, maybe even longer. Oil prices stay really high, markets are gyrating. I mean, does Iran think that suddenly they're going to get one of those proposals removed, that sanctions are going to be taken away faster? I mean, like, just logistically, what are they going to gain that would compensate for the losses that they're going to be taking every single day to their infrastructure, to their military, to their people?

[David Sanger]

I can't crawl inside their heads, but I can just take a guess. From having covered negotiations with Iran before, one of the big hangups has been this question of whether Iran will permanently give up its right to enrich nuclear fuel. And the US has insisted no, this time the Iranians have to agree they'll never again make nuclear fuel. And the Iranians have had a consistent position that they're a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, that all signatories have a right to enrich uranium as long as they are not diverting it to bomb projects. They maintain that they've long committed to never building a nuclear weapon. None of us believe that, but that has been their formal commitment. I think they believe that the administration may well relent on this point and that they will get a pause of a few years in which they agree not to produce any nuclear fuel and then some limited amount of enrichment after that, that they would stay in the game. Now, if the Trump administration agreed to that, it would be a big backing away from their position. It would also end up looking a lot more like the agreement that President Obama got out of Iran in 2015, in which the Iranians shipped almost all their nuclear fuel out of the country, but kept low level enrichment.

[Michael Barbaro]

I suppose since you mentioned nuclear enrichment and nuclear weapons, we should probably acknowledge the point that this entire war so far has no doubt increased the incentive for Iran to seek out a nuclear weapon. It's not exactly a strategic secret that when you have a nuclear weapon, you're a lot less likely to be attacked by the US And Israel than when you don't.

[David Sanger]

Absolutely. The Iranians cannot have missed the point that the Trump administration has not attacked North Korea. North Korea has missiles that can reach the United States, not sometime in the future, but now. North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons, not at some point in the future, but now. And that's the very reason that the US Wouldn't even consider an attack like this on Pyongyang. And so, you know, depending on how this all plays out, we may have just given Iran every incentive to follow the North Korean model.

[Michael Barbaro]

David, I want to end just by asking you to reflect on something that you know very intimately, which is that the US And Iran did engage in very serious and successful negotiations back in 2015, and you got a really up close view of those talks. I remember reading your coverage of that. You were there during the negotiations as they reached their apex. And this deal was signed, a historic deal between these mortal foes. So we know these two countries are capable of serious high level history making diplomacy.

[David Sanger]

If they want to, they are capable of it. Michael and I did cover that negotiation for the year and a half or two years that it went on. And it was long and painful. And in the end it resulted in an agreement that the Iranians largely kept to until President Trump pulled out of the accord in 2018. And historians will be debating for a long time whether you can draw a straight line from that decision in 2018 to this attack.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. Because that diplomacy was intended to ensure we never had a war like this. And he tore it up and now we do.

[David Sanger]

It was intended to make sure that the Iranian program stayed in a box and that you would have at least a year's notice if the Iranians were racing for a bomb. Then President Trump pulled out, and the Iranians stayed in accord with the agreement for a year or two, then decided they were chumps to do that, and they did race right to the edge of a bomb.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[David Sanger]

But you know, Michael, I've been thinking about this, and there's no chance that we can go back to the kind of negotiation that took place in 2015. Why, that was quite limited. It was just focused on the Iranian nuclear program. And even the effort by the US to expand it out to missiles failed, failed. But today, the war has unleashed so many more issues beyond the nuclear program itself. I mean, first, the Iranians have demonstrated a huge ability to disrupt the global economy, to shut off the Strait of Hormuz. That's now going to become a focus of negotiation in a way it wasn't even a month ago. Right. In 2015, there was very little trust between the Iranians and the Americans. Unpopular as the Obama deal was in Washington, it was even more unpopular in Tehran. We forget that because no one believed the US Would carry through and lift sanctions. Today, there's even less trust. Back then, the Iranians committed as part of the 2015 agreement that they would never seek a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure that the new government of Iran could get away with that today. And finally, I think we have to recognize that after war has started, after you have shattered a government, after you have bombed its people, that you've then unleashed a whole series of new political forces that none of us really understand. Maybe this will end the way President Trump envisioned and Bibi Netanyahu envisioned on February 28 with an uprising against the Iranian government. But it's very possible that we have triggered the opposite effect, and we're just not going to know that for months, maybe years to come.

[Michael Barbaro]

So as infinitely complicated and delicate as the 2015 negotiations that you covered were, what lies ahead between Iran and the

[David Sanger]

US Will be even more so, wildly more complicated. Michael. Before, we were just negotiating over the status of their nuclear program. Now we're negotiating over their future survivability as a state. And that is completely existential for the Iranians. And it's going to add dramatically to the complexity of bringing this war to an end.

[Michael Barbaro]

Oh, David, thank you very much. Appreciate it, as always.

[David Sanger]

Thanks, Michael.

[Michael Barbaro]

On Sunday night, the Times reported that several hundred U.S. special operations forces, including Army Rangers and Navy Seals, have arrived in the Middle East. As President Trump weighs his options in the latest sign of how far off diplomacy may be the speaker of Iran's parliament, a potential partner in any negotiations with the US Warned that if the United States deploys any ground troops into Iran that Iran would set them on fire. We'll be right back.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

The right technology can strengthen human judgment. That's why Deloitte brings together AI and data analytics with multidisciplinary teams who can help you connect the dots across your enterprise, from risk to operations to customer needs. So opportunities don't slip by and surprises don't spread. Because the smarter your systems, the sharper your instincts. That's how technology makes people better at what they do best. Deloitte Together makes progress. Learn [e-mail] TogetherMakesProgress Most all in one HR systems are a patchwork of disconnected and manual tools. Rippling is totally automated. If you promote an employee, Rippling can automatically handle necessary updates from payroll taxes and provisioning new app permissions to assigning required manager training. That's why rippling is the number one rated human capital management suite on G2, TrustRadius and Gartner. If you're ready to run the backbone of your business on one unified platform, head to rippling.com thedaily and sign up today. That's rippling.com thedaily to sign up. What does slow travel sound like? The sounds of Italy brought to you by Belmond learn [e-mail] Belmond LifeInItaly.

[Michael Barbaro]

Here's what else you need to know.

Today, I protest all of Trump's illegal,

[David Sanger]

immoral, reckless and feckless endless wars. We're out here because we feel that the Constitution is under threat.

[Michael Barbaro]

In small towns and big cities across the U.S. protesters gathered on Sunday Saturday for thousands of rallies against President Trump, his domestic policies and his use of the military at home and overseas.

[David Sanger]

And I'm afraid that I wannabe King,

[Michael Barbaro]

who is busy building himself and his

[David Sanger]

billionaires a ballroom,

[Michael Barbaro]

intends to use ICE as his own private army to do his bidding to make him king. But he is not a king.

Organizers said that the no Kings rallies drew millions of people. Among the speakers were lawmakers, activists and performers, including Bruce Springsteen, who addressed crowds outside Minnesota's State Capitol in St. Paul.

[David Sanger]

This is still America, and this reactionary nightmare and these invasions of American cities will not stand.

[Michael Barbaro]

And President Trump's emergency order to pay airport security screeners signed on Friday is expected to end the crisis of wait times at the country's airports. But it's unclear exactly how long it will take for the security lines to return to normal. Meanwhile, a permanent solution remains elusive because the Department of Homeland Security remains largely shut down. Today's episode was produced by Mary Wilson and Stella Tan. It was edited by Chris Haxel with help from Rachel Quester and Maria Byrne. Contains music by Diane Wong and Marion Lozano. Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily I'm Michael Albaro. See you tomorrow.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Life in Italy with Belmond we got married at Hotel Caruso in May on the Amalfi coast. On the wedding day, looking out as I ate breakfast, I could see the olive trees where our dinner would later happen.

[Michael Barbaro]

I could hear the birds chirping.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

I could hear our pianists practicing.

[David Sanger]

I could hear almost nothing else.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Discover a new pace of travel. Read more [e-mail] Belmond LifeInItaly.