Can Trump's Iran deal survive?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Can Trump's Iran Deal Survive?"

The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim
Sky News – June 24, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode unpacks the fraught negotiations between the United States and Iran following the recent conflict sparked by a US-Israeli strike. Richard Engel (NBC) and Yalda Hakim (Sky News), both seasoned correspondents, analyze the state of US-Iran negotiations, the controversial Iran deal now being brokered by the Trump administration, the role of Vice President J.D. Vance, Israel's anger, and the growing influence of media voices like Tucker Carlson. The conversation delves deep into the complexity of the peace process, the fragility of the ceasefire, and the shifting balance of power in the Middle East.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of US-Iran Negotiations

• Negotiations Overview: The US and Iran have entered a crucial 60-day negotiation period, with meetings taking place in Switzerland and mediation from Qatar and Pakistan ([01:11-01:41]).
• Underlying Tensions: While there is some progress, the deal's sustainability is at risk due to political instability in the US and Iran's perception of having more economic “time” than America has political time ([01:01], [01:06]).
• Mixed Messaging from the US: Trump’s aggressive rhetoric threatens to undermine negotiations (“making threats to obliterate the country while he sends his vice president to negotiate a deal”—Richard Engel, [02:10]).

2. Trump, J.D. Vance, and Domestic US Dynamics

• J.D. Vance as Negotiator: Despite previously being against foreign wars, Vice President Vance is now the public face of this deal, possibly set up by Trump to shoulder the blame if talks collapse ([12:49-15:37]).

  “If it goes well, I’ll take the credit. If it doesn’t, it’s on J.D. Vance.” (Richard paraphrasing Trump, [12:49])

• Trump’s Blame-Shifting: Observers note Trump is adept at shifting blame, now aiming at Netanyahu as well:

  “He’s shifted the blame to the Israelis and Benjamin Netanyahu...and he needs to not...hit these buildings.” (Yalda, [17:11])

• Public Sentiment: Americans dislike war but dislike defeat more—the endgame is as politically charged as the conflict itself ([12:49]).
• J.D. Vance’s awkward position: Seen as holding a weak negotiating hand, with images of him waiting for Iranians in Switzerland symbolizing the US's lack of leverage ([12:49-15:37]).

3. The Israeli Perspective and Regional Fallout

• Unified Israeli Opposition: Even normally fractious politicians (Ben Gvir, Eisenkop, Bennett, Lapid) are united in condemning the deal ([01:13]).
• Israel Excluded from Talks: Netanyahu refuses to accept the deal, and Israel stands outside the formal negotiations, which is a “structural problem” as a main warring party is not engaged ([19:43-21:24]).
• Lebanon Complications: Conflict in southern Lebanon continues, as Israeli troops inside Lebanon and Hezbollah’s resilience threaten the ceasefire's credibility ([25:27]).

  “As long as Israeli troops are there, they’re probably going to fight with Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is going to fight back...” (Richard Engel, [25:27])

• Gulf States and Mediation: Qatar, UAE, and Pakistan serve crucial roles mediating, managing billions in Iranian frozen assets for economic rebuilding ([21:24-22:51]).

4. Mechanics and Fragility of the Deal

• Strait of Hormuz: Control and tolls over this crucial oil route now play a central role—traffic has decreased, giving Iran tangible leverage ([15:37]).

  “The Strait of Hormuz can now be closed at any time that the Iranians want. And we aren’t seeing the sort of traffic that we were before this war.” (Yalda, [15:37])

• Sanctions and Financial Flows: Trump administration insists any released funds must be spent via a controlled mechanism through Qatar and on American products, which Iran contests ([09:53-12:49]).
• No Robust Verification: There are few if any robust verification mechanisms, in contrast to the 2015 JCPOA deal, leading to deep skepticism among stakeholders ([29:42-32:28]).

  “There are no guarantees that it can and it will work because there’s no sense of what are the sort of verification models or processes for this.” (Yalda, [29:42])

• Nuclear Question Postponed: The nuclear dimension is deferred—tensions will likely spike again once the 60-day window closes ([29:42-32:28]).

5. Tucker Carlson’s Role and Right-Wing Media Influence

• Interview Excerpt: Yalda visits Tucker Carlson in rural Maine, discussing US war fatigue, Trump’s legacy, and Israel ([05:28-07:37]).

  “Of course it’s the end. Of course. Of course it’s the end...you’re the Iran war guy if you do this.” (Tucker Carlson to Trump, [07:37])

• Carlson’s Influence: Though “just a podcaster in a shed,” he’s now a powerful public voice, challenging unconditional US support for Israel and shaping opinions at the highest level ([34:02-36:14]).

  “I feel sorry for Israel because for years it’s talked about this existential threat, and now they do face this existential threat…” (Tucker Carlson, paraphrased by Yalda, [34:02])

• Israeli Worries: Rising US skepticism towards unwavering Israel support frightens Israeli political and military elites, who now fear US disengagement ([36:14]).

6. Listener Q&A Highlights

• Israel’s Position: Netanyahu—and, by extension, Israel—is not accepting the deal, remaining outside its terms, which undermines any lasting peace ([19:43-21:24]).
• Guarantees of the Deal: There are no real guarantees for the deal’s survival; verification and enforcement mechanisms remain vague ([29:42-32:28]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Convoluted Nature of the War:

  “The peace process is as convoluted as the war itself. The war was based on claims that were never true. So how do you have a peace process trying to unsolve something that was solved to begin with?”
  — Richard Engel ([03:07])

• On US Political Calculations:

  “Americans don’t like war, but they don’t like defeat more. And how a war ends matters.”
  — Yalda Hakim ([12:49])

• On Trump’s Political Risk:

  “He knows exactly what he was getting into...you’re the Iran war guy if you do this.”
  — Tucker Carlson ([07:37])

• On the Deal’s Weakness:

  “If something was broke from the beginning, then how do you fix it?...none of those things happen.”
  — Richard Engel ([15:37])

• On Media Power:

  "In this new world, it’s not just nation states who have power. Individuals have power. Elon Musk has power. Tucker Carlson has power. Individuals increasingly do matter in this sort of non traditional world that we’re entering into."
  — Richard Engel ([37:24])

• On Israeli and Regional Fallout:

  "So it's not a very good sign for this peace treaty, or any peace treaty, when one of the warring parties isn't part of the peace process and is still actively pursuing a war..."
  — Richard Engel ([21:24])

---

Timeline of Key Segments

• [00:53-02:10] – Episode theme, tension around US-Iran deal, summary of conflicting national priorities
• [03:07-05:28] – Personal reflections from the hosts, state of mind in covering such a confusing conflict
• [05:28-07:37] – Yalda’s interview with Tucker Carlson and analysis of Trump’s political calculus
• [09:38-12:49] – Details on the Iran deal terms, economic and political tradeoffs, Trump's shifting rhetoric
• [12:49-15:37] – J.D. Vance’s role, blame-shifting dynamics, symbolism in the negotiation images
• [17:11-18:01] – Trump shifting responsibility to Netanyahu, Marco Rubio as possible alternative
• [19:43-22:51] – Listener Q&A: Israel’s refusal to participate in the deal, Gulf states’ mediating role
• [25:27-28:48] – Lebanon war analysis; reality of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon; risks of ongoing violence
• [29:42-32:28] – Listener Q&A: No lasting guarantees for the deal, lack of clear verification mechanisms
• [34:02-37:24] – Tucker Carlson’s influence, American public debate on Israel, regional fears of US abandonment

---

Conclusion

This episode offers an unflinching assessment of the “Iran deal” sought by the Trump administration, underscoring its precariousness, lack of clarity, and historic significance. The analysis is deeply informed by firsthand reporting, sharp interviews (with Tucker Carlson), and listener questions, painting a vivid picture of a world where traditional alliances and rules are fraying. Both Engel and Hakim repeatedly note the existential challenges facing all involved—America’s fractured politics, Israel’s exclusion, Iran’s leverage, and the rising power of non-state media influencers.

Listeners are left questioning whether the current architecture for peace can hold, and whether the US’s new approach will lead to real stability or deeper chaos. The episode ends on the note that the future—not just for the Middle East, but for American global leadership—may well hinge on the outcome of these fragile 60 days.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, I'm Ada Barume and I'm one of the hosts of a weekly investigative show called the Slow Newscast. Over at the observer, we like to take the news slowly, and each week we'll bring you one investigation that really matters and helps you make sense of the world. From the inside stories straight out of the halls of Westminster to true crime and injustice, to celebrity trials and real human mysteries. Subscribe to the Slow Newscast feed wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

Sky News the full story first. Hello, it's me, Yalda, and I'm currently in New York.

[C]

And me, Richard, in Lisbon. And welcome to the World Podcast.

[B]

Iran and the United States are embarked

[C]

on 60 days of negotiation to try

[B]

to end the war.

[C]

It will probably be difficult because the

[B]

Iranians figure that they have more economic time than the Americans have political time. And they're probably right.

[C]

It's fundamentally a good deal for the American people. But it's also very simple and I've

[D]

also seen some misrepresentations about it.

[B]

There isn't that much that unites Israel's best known politicians, but today they found common cause. Ben GVIR Eisenkop, Bennett Lapid. They came from all angles to condemn this deal.

[C]

So today we're going to focus on Iran. The first round of negotiations between the US And Iran have ended in Switzerland, with mediators from Qatar and Pakistan saying encouraging progress has been made.

[B]

Yeah, all the while, Richard J.D. vance, the vice president, was leading the U.S. delegation to Switzerland with these talks with the Iranians. And Donald Trump was doing what Donald Trump does. He was posting on Truth Social, according to some Iranian officials, that almost derailed the entire thing because he said that the delegates wouldn't have a country if they didn't open up the Strait of Hormuz. So we're going to talk a bit more about that as well.

[C]

So making threats to obliterate the country while he sends his vice president to negotiate a deal, is he setting up J.D. vance to fail? Is this deal going to fail? We'll be talking about that, the mixed messages coming from the US And Iran and how this deal is going down in Israel, where it is going down like a lead balloon. And violence is continuing in, in southern Lebanon despite, what is it now, the fifth, sixth, seventh attempt at a ceasefire there?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And we'll also be answering some of your questions on this week's podcast. Lots of questions coming our way. And you can send us more of your thoughts at the usual place, the worldatsky.uk and you can watch us on our YouTube channel. And follow us wherever you get your podcasts, Apple or Spotify. So, Richard, we'll dive into the Iran deal and what the latest is in a moment, but I haven't seen you in a few weeks. How's it going?

[C]

Well, thank you. It's summer and I've been doing a lot of the back and forth on Iran, this war, now this peace process. But I'm doing otherwise great, aside from trying to pull my hair out, trying to figure out this process. And you know what I think I've come down to? The peace process is as convoluted as the war itself. The war was based on claims that were never true. So how do you have a peace process trying to unsolve something that was solved to begin with? So that's how I'm doing on a personal and intellectual and moral front. I'm feeling confused. I can't remember a war that has had less clarity in it than I've ever covered. And I don't say that with to be flippant. I'm trying to think back. Look at Ukraine, okay, I know what Putin wants. He wants to take over Ukraine. I know what Ukraine wants. Ukraine wants to defend itself. But in this war, you have Israel's agenda, you have Trump's agenda, you have internal American politics, you have gas prices, oil prices, Iran's agenda, Hezbollah's agenda. So we'll get into all of that. And what about you?

[B]

You know, like you, there is literally no one I, I haven't spoken to who thinks this war was a good idea or that this deal is a good idea. And I'm currently in the US I've been speaking to a bunch of people about where we're at with this war, including the conservative, controversial, very influential commentator, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. He had the ear of Donald Trump for a very long time and they've since that relationship has sort of soured as a result of this war. And so, you know, I'm speaking to a lot of Americans who, who are baffled about how did we get here.

[C]

I've seen some clips of the interview and I know you're gonna be rolling more out on Sky. We can tease one. And then what I really wanna hear about is what you made of him. Where did you go? Where did you meet? He's become quite an influential figure in American politics. He has Trump's ear, or at least had it. So for those listening and not watching on our YouTube, you're at a table, looks like a country farm table with candles on it, rustic furniture, kind of a cozy environment. Where were you? How'd you get there? How long did you meet? Set up this clip that we're about to hear.

[B]

So I went to where Tucker is currently living and where he records his very famous podcast, which has tens of billions of followers. Most of his stuff on digital and social media has huge following. So we went out to rural Maine, where he currently is. And rural Maine, it's. It's in the woods.

[C]

Maine is. For people who don't know it, it's quite. It has a beautiful coastline. And then once you get off the coast, it's very woody.

[B]

He's literally living in the wood. He said that as a child he used to go out to Maine a lot. So even though he's from San Francisco, he had this connection with Maine and he showed me this kind of garage that he's converted into his podcast studio. It was also once his TV studio. So it's this extraordinary space that is full of trinkets, family trinkets and art that his father owned books. But for me, Taka Carlson represents this guy that we've sort of watched and followed for a long time and who, you know, has had this up and down relationship with Donald Trump for about a decade or more. And I Remember during the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Tucker Carlson was. Was more or less the guy who introduced Donald Trump. Just days after that assassination attempt, he came out and the crowd were going wild. He gave this captivating speech and out came Donald Trump. And since then, Tucker Carlson. Carlson was known to have Donald Trump's ear constantly seen around the president. And he told me how he told Donald Trump dozens of times not to do this. Let's have a listen. And I guess another US President dragged into a war in the Middle east that they say they either didn't want to start or move away from. And for me, it's quite personal. What happened in Afghanistan with Joe Biden and the way that they. The shambolic way that they withdrew and, and that, for me, was a defining moment for Joe Biden's presidency. It felt like the beginning of, of the end of his presidency. Do you think this war is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump?

[D]

Of course it's the end. Of course. Of course it's the end. And he, and I said this to him in February. I said what he already knew. I mean, Trump is smart, and I didn't tell Trump anything that he didn't know and understand. Trump is not a detail man. He mangles the details. He lies about the Details, obviously, but he understands big picture politics as well, or certainly better than I do. And his instinct for people is remarkable. So he's a very talented person. You don't get to be president by accident. And he knew exactly what he was getting into. But I said to him, look, I knew Bush pretty well personally, and Bush had all kinds of plans when he got elected in 2000. I was there when he got elected, and he planned to reform Social Security and bring charitable choice. He had all these programs, theoretical programs no one remembers the names of. Now, what's the Bush presidency about? It's about the Iraq war and the financial collapse of 2008. Those are its defining facts. And that will be you. It doesn't matter what else. You close the border, all this stuff. No, no, you're the Iran war guy if you do this. But he knew that. Boy, did he know that.

[C]

Interesting. I can't wait to hear the rest of it. One more question, if you can help me set the scene before we talk about the substance of that, which is a perfect transition, since we're going to be talking about, will this war really be Trump's legacy and will it bring him down? As you were asking him about, were there lots of people there? Was it a buzz of activity or was it kind of not too crowded?

[B]

No, it was pretty low key. There was probably, like, three people there who have worked with him for a long time. And Tucker sort of came in, he wanted to take his dogs out for a walk afterwards, filled these bags up with ammunition because he said that he was going out sort of hunting afterwards. So, you know, it just sort of gave us a window into Tucker and Tucker's life.

[C]

So the Iran deal, should we lay out where things are as of now and why it's not so simple as, you know, just stopping the fighting.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Let's not forget the war began because Israel and the United States launched a war on Iran.

[D]

Right.

[C]

Surprise attack, based on Israeli intelligence that the supreme Leader would be meeting with his top leaders. Although he was not exactly in hiding, he was not a hard target to find. This is not Osama bin Laden here. He was in the country all the time. He was an elderly man, the former supreme leader. But anyway, it began with accusations of nuclear weapons, that they were about to have them, even though there's been no scientific evidence ever proven that they were about to use them, although they didn't have the capability. And when they closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to the attack, it became about opening the Strait of Hormuz and now that it is a peace deal, there's many criticisms coming from within the United States, certainly coming from Israel, that Trump, after going in very hot, very aggressively, saying that he was gonna, you know, wipe them all out, and let's not also forget he said that he was gonna help free the pro democracy protesters on the street and that there was gonna be a popular revolution, and then suddenly people were gonna come out and there would be this popular Tehran spring, and you'd have a new government. Trump's not saying that. He's saying now the regime has already changed, at least in spiritual. They're negotiating to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and keep it tariff free, although there might be some Iranian fees mixed in there, which would be a huge pill for Trump to swallow because it would mean he went backwards in this war, didn't go forwards. He actually took a strait that was open and made it a toll road, effectively. No talk of the protesters anymore. The regime seems more legitimate and in place than ever, is playing hardball, wants sanctions lifted. They want their money to be unfrozen. That's a very difficult thing for the US to do because there's a scheme in which the US Wouldn't pay the money directly to Iran, which could be politically sensitive. It would be funneled through Qatar, and Qatar would sort of dole out the money. And Trump says, well, that can only be used to buy American products. And the Iranians are saying, well, we never dealt with that. So you have J.D. vance in the negotiating room trying to negotiate a worse deal effectively than what they had before, because it means sanctions are gone. Strait of Hormuz may or may not have some restrictions. No hope really at this stage for the, at least in the medium term for the democratic opposition in the country, because the regime is legitimized and they could receive tens of billions of dollars through Qatar. Oh, and also the war in Lebanon, which Iran says must be included in the deal. And the US Israel is still trying to break out and make a separate peace deal. While he's trying to do that, President Trump is dropping bombs saying if the negotiators don't agree to the demands, they might leave the negotiating table and not find they have a country anymore. And even said, if it's a big success, this war, I'll get all the credit. If these negotiations are a total failure, it's Vance's fault.

[B]

Just the fact that J.D. vance, who basically was against this war, you know, he is someone who tried to stay behind the scenes once this war started. We saw Marco Rubio come out several times trying to defend what was happening in the early days of the war. But J.D. van sort of almost disappeared from the scene because, of course, he too was very vocal about these forever wars that America was engaged in and doesn't want American intervention. Essentially, he has gone from that position to now being the face of this deal. And as you say, Donald Trump joked about the fact that, look, if it goes well, I'll take the credit. If it doesn't, it's on J.D. vance. That's what I find sort of extraordinary, that he sends out his vice president, someone who has presidential ambitions, and he's essentially made him the poster child of this deal. And there's been extraordinary images that have come out from Switzerland over the course of the last few days of JD Vance waiting for the Iranian delegation to arrive. There've been people who have analyzed this and said, look, if you've got the upper hand, if you're the one that's in the driver's seat with any kind of deal, you don't arrive first. You don't wait for the other side to arrive. And then when the Iranians did arrive, because Donald Trump had been putting out these truth social posts, the Iranian delegation staged sort of a mini protest, walked out. They were saying that Donald Trump saying that their country won't exist anymore, will derail the entirety of the deal. What I know about Americans, and you know this better than me, Americans don't like war, but they don't like defeat more. And how a war ends matters. And I saw this with the war in Afghanistan, where the shambolic way in which Joe Biden left Afghanistan ended that war essentially, in many ways, amongst other things, cost him his presidency. And so for Donald Trump, the fact that the objectives of this war wasn't clear, and now the objectives of this deal, it feels very fragile. The sorts of things they've put in place, including the Strait of Hormos. And it doesn't feel right now that the Iranians are rattled by these threats made by Donald Trump. And if you look at the numbers of ships that have managed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz since Friday, when this sort of 60 day process came into effect after they signed the deal, from Friday through to Sunday, something like 70 boats, 70 ships have passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Before this war, it was somewhere between 100 and 130. The fact is the Strait of Hormuz can now be closed at any time that the Iran want. And we aren't seeing the sort of traffic that we were before this war. And it feels like in some ways, the Iranians are calling the shots.

[C]

Well, that's certainly the way it is seen in Israel. It is certainly the way many of Trump's critics see it going. And it does seem that J.D. vance has been set up to fail in these negotiations. He's going there with a weak hand after the US didn't stop, accomplish what it said it was going to accomplish, to show how the origin story is so important. That's why I keep going back to it. It's like, if something was broke from the beginning, then how do you fix it? What is supposed to look right? If it was based on falsehoods and misconceptions and false accusations, then what are you supposed to be building toward the end? And President Trump said they were about to have a nuke, that the Strait of Hormuz had to be open, that there would be no money exchanged, and that the Iranian regime would be over. None of those things happen. So he's sending his vice president to try and negotiate out of this conundrum. So, inevitably, it's going to be an unfavorable deal. He's just not set up necessarily for success. So do you think that is he trying to undermine J.D. vance? I'm curious to know what you've thought about this. J.D. vance has presidential ambitions. It's not clear that Trump wants a dynasty. Trump knows how to promote people when he wants to. He's promoted members of his own family. He's kept this very much a family business. He took on J.D. vance at the urging of Tucker Carlson and others around him. Is this a way to say, okay, well, let's give Vance this rough job, he's being dealt a weak hand. So that's the question. Do you think, is he deliberately not trying to hand over his dynasty to Mr. Vance?

[B]

I think that what Donald Trump is quite good at is shifting blame. And once he realized that this war was not going well, and even now that this deal has come together, he's shifted the blame to the Israelis and Benjamin Netanyahu, he has spoken at press conferences about the fact that, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu, he's a friend, he's an ally, but, but, but, but, you know, and he needs to not, you know, hit these buildings. If you're looking for one person, you know, you shouldn't be destroying entire buildings. And we've heard him behind the scenes and to camera talk about his frustrations with the way that Benjamin Netanyahu is prosecuting this war. So he's shifted the this is not really my mess. And I'm trying to now bring peace to the Middle east, which J.D. vance keeps reiterating.

[C]

Bibi's mess that Vance is going to clean up.

[B]

Well, now he's sort of saying very openly he might, you know, J.D. vance has said that he's joking, but he has said if it goes well, I take credit goes badly. Here's the guy you should blame. And in fact, it feels very much like he's drawing the lines, Richard, because he's praising Marco Rubio, who has his own presidential ambitions. And we're going to see Marco Rubio in the coming days in the region. So we'll have to see how he handles. And it does feel like Marco Rubio much more experienced, much more comfortable in these sorts of settings, in these sorts of negotiations than a JD Vance is. So things like walking into the room before the Iranians arrive, you know, some of the things that he has been saying over the course of the last few days trying to defend the president, whether he's been speaking to podcasters like Megyn Kelly or he did this kind of car crash interview that went on for about 25 minutes on the View with the likes of Whoopi Goldberg who were interrogating him about what the promises were in terms of no war and where America is, what the gas prices are, what the grocery prices are, and the fact that this administration is more focused on foreign policy than they are about what's going on to Americans on a daily basis and how they're getting food on the table. This is something that this administration promised and they're not delivering a year and a bit into this presidency. So it does feel like JD Vance has become the public face of this deal, some ways of this war, what the next phase and stage of this is. But Richard, there is a question here from a listener from Kathy who's saying, is the Iran deal with the US Going to be accepted by the rest of the region? Will Israel accept the conditions? I'll let you go first.

[C]

Hello, Kathy. First of all, thank you very much for your question. It is the question and there's a lot of ways to answer it. But will Israel accept it now? Now, let's just say will Netanyahu accept it? Let's make it a little more specific because he's the decision maker and he's facing an election coming up in the fall. At this stage, he said no, he will not accept it. Israel's official position is that they are not a signatory to this deal. They're not part of it, which is one of the fundamental structural problems. You have a ceasefire now with between two warring parties, but there are actually three or four warring parties. So this war was launched by Israel, the United States, against Iran, and Israel is not part of it. So you have one of the warring parties that's not part of the deal. That's always a problem. Then you've got Hezbollah, which isn't part of the deal, although it is because it's closely tied to Iran. So the ceasefire doesn't explicitly cover Israel, but it does because of the Lebanon war. So, Kathy, this is all the very hard way or complicated way to answer your question, that, that the hat is too small for the head. The peace deal isn't big enough for the problem right now. It's just a peace deal that Israel is saying, oh, we're not part of the deal. But of course they're part of the deal because they're part of the conflict. So therefore, their involvement matters to the deal. And at this stage, they're claiming that they have nothing to do with it. So it's not a very good sign for this peace treaty, or any peace treaty, when one of the warring parties isn't part of the peace process and is still actively pursuing a war, again, a foreign country that is part or should be part, according to the negotiators of the peace deal.

[B]

I just wanted to add that if we look at the Gulf states, for example, the Gulf states have been at the forefront of this conflict. They have been battered by the Iranians. And now, you see, I mean, obviously the Americans are giving a lot of credit to the Pakistani team, the prime minister, the field marshal, for driving these negotiations and being mediators between the Iranians and the Americans. But behind the scenes, the Qataris are also, you know, working with the Americans to put guardrails in place. So they're talking about a hotline, for example, for the Strait of Hormuz, because, you know, both the US military and the Revolutionary Guard view the other as the enemy. And so when the ships are trying to pass through, how do you manage that? So there are guardrails that are being put in place to ensure that, you know, they don't start shooting at each other in the middle of this sort of attempt at opening the Strait of Hormuz and further escalating this conflict. They're also being required through these Gulf states, the likes of Qatar and the uae, to unfreeze some of the frozen assets for the Iranians. Now, this isn't American money or Qatari money. They're saying that this is money that frozen funds of the Iranian regime and billions and billions of dollars, by the way, that they're going to manage a fund that's going to be managed by the Gulf states to try and rebuild the Iranian economy.

[C]

Billion dollar fund.

[B]

Correct. So it's not a small amount. The Americans, the Trump administration, Trump himself and the Vice president have talked about, you know, how American farmers can help with building the Iranian economy, for example. So, you know, for Israel, one of the major successes for Benjamin Netanyahu in this war was convincing Donald Trump, Trump to go in with him. We know that for decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to convince other presidents to attack Iran. Trump listened, Benjamin Netanyahu advocated, and Trump swallowed it. They went into this war that was a success for Benjamin Netanyahu. But for Benjamin Netanyahu, this deal is a major failure. He has 60 days now to try and figure out how he has some kind of. Of leverage in all of this. And I'm not sure how easy that is going to be for Benjamin Netanyahu, because Donald Trump is desperate for this deal. He knows the global economy has been impacted. He's got midterms coming up. He cannot afford for this war to continue. The United States, on some levels, has come out of this. It could have been worse, frankly. They could have been caught up in this war for decades like they have in other wars. So actually, to come out of this, four months into this conflict with some kind of deal, now, the Iranian are completely skeptical. They're suspicious of American intentions because every time they've gone into these negotiations with the Americans, their country has been attacked, the Supreme Leader was killed. So they're not sure what the intention is here. But it does seem like Trump, this administration, are so desperate for this deal to go ahead that they're willing to say to Benjamin Netanyahu, back off, stop the attacks on southern Lebanon. And that in itself is a very interesting dynamic is happening in Lebanon. Suddenly, it's not just the Strait of Hormuz, it's not just the nuclear deal, it's not just frozen funds. The Lebanon aspect of this is the most interesting, I think, because suddenly, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu would constantly say, well, Hezbollah has breached the ceasefire. So we're going in, we're launching this attack. Suddenly, you know, the Iranians are saying, the Israelis have breached this ceasefire. We're closing the Strait of Hormuz. This deal is off. So that's put sort of Trump in a very tricky situation here because he's having to listen to the Iranians when they say that and saying to Benjamin Netanyahu, stop what you're doing, or the impact of this is going to be the Strait of Hormuz shutting down.

[C]

And speaking of Lebanon, a reason why that conflict is so difficult right now and is so unlikely to have a successful ceasefire is that there are Israeli troops inside Lebanon. It's not that the Israelis are firing from one side of the border and Hezbollah is firing on the other. And the plan, according to the latest version of this peace deal, there was one agreement between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Now the US Is trying to mediate this, is that Israeli troops will stop shooting at Hezbollah, but they're supposed to stay in south Lebanon, but they will only fire in self defense. Good luck with that. Because what does self defense mean? Hezbollah will only attack in self defense. Good luck with that. Because they consider any foreign soldier on their soil to be an occupation soldier and therefore a legitimate target, which they would define as self defense, potentially. So that's a tremendous problem. And Hezbollah is not just going to negotiate itself away. Israel's position that Hezbollah has to go away, be disarmed, cease being a factor in Lebanese politics, become a political party, pull all of its guns out of the south and make the leaders just go away and stop making noise and stop causing problems. And many Lebanese, frankly, would like that as well. And many people around the world would be happy to see that Iran is not one of them. Hezbollah doesn't agree. It is not going to negotiate itself away. So as long as Israeli troops are there, they're probably going to fight with Hezbollah and Hezbollah is going to fight back, or Hezbollah is going to fight with them and Israelis are going to fight back. It seems very unlikely that you're going to have a frozen between these enemies ceasefire that is going to last as long as you have thousands of Israeli troops far away from home, occupying a buffer zone in a foreign country. It's not like Gaza's completely sealed off, it's devastated. The Israelis control all access points. Lebanon is not like that. You know, south of the area that is controlled by the Israeli military, it's open, people, Lebanese can come and go. They're being ordered to leave, but they can. One thing struck me. President Trump said to China, well, thank you very much, President Xi. Thank you for not challenging this military blockade. And thankfully, he could have just, he was talking about Xi. He could have just escorted his tankers with a bunch of Chinese warships and that would have been a big problem. And I'm so glad that he didn't. Thank you. If I'm Taiwan, that comment right there scares me to death because he's effectively saying, I would not have opposed a Chinese blockade if the Chinese had really threatened his military blockade and escorted their ships with military vessels and meant to use them if they were challenged. So there's already something that would make me nervous because he sort of said, if you really want to beat me on a blockade, here's how you could do it. And then the last thing is how much this is sort of tilted in Iran's favor. Just a few months ago, President Trump almost said we should rename it the Gulf of Arabia, and the Arab states wanted to call it the Gulf of Arabia instead of the Persian Gulf Gulf, and MBS wanted to call it the Arabian Gulf. And on maps in that part of the world, it is listed as the Arabian Gulf, and the Iranians call it the Persian Gulf. It seems like it's much more of the Persian Gulf today than it was a few years ago, a few months ago, or even a few years ago, but a few months ago in particular.

[B]

That's really fascinating. Let's take an ad break, Richard, and come back because we've got more questions.

[A]

Hello, I'm Ada Barume and I'm one of the hosts of a weekly investigative show called the Slow Newscast. Over at the observer, we like to take the news slowly, and each week we'll bring you one investigation that really matters and helps you make sense of the world, from the inside stories straight out of the halls of Westminster to true crime and injustice to celebrity trials and real human mysteries. Subscribe to the sloanewscast feed wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

Welcome back. So we have one more question. Yalda, why don't you take this one? It is from Sam. How do we know this is a lasting deal? What are the guarantees that it can or will work?

[B]

So easy and quick answer is there are no guarantees that it can and it will work because there's no sense of what are the sort of verification models or processes for this. There are assurances, there are monitoring mechanisms and there are threats. The question is who's listening to what and who has the upper hand and who has the sort of holds the cards. I've spoken to a lot of people who say, well, the Iranians don't necessarily have the upper hand, but I do think they have a lot of cards. And we've talked about the Strait of Hormuz, for example. We've talked about the fact that they're now using that. That as leverage to get what they want. And whether that is saying that Israel is breaching the ceasefire in Lebanon and stopping the fighting there, which has made the Lebanese government feel the Iranians have negotiated this, and it has undermined their negotiations and talks with the Israelis as well. So that's put them in quite a tricky situation. There are, as we know, regional tensions that continue, and that can flare up at any time, as you say, whether that's between Hezbollah and Israel, whether that's between Israel and Iran, and whether Iran decides, well, it's just going to start firing drones and missiles at the Gulf states. So things remain incredibly fragile with this deal because it can be flared up at any sort of moment. There are a lot of disputes around the verification as well. Donald Trump famously ripped up the Obama deal that was put in place in 2015 after years of negotiations and discussions. It was described as a weak. But one thing that they did have was a sort of verification model. IAEA inspectors going in, and they knew what was happening in these nuclear facilities and sites in Iran. The Iranians, after that deal was ripped up during the Biden years, sort of sped up their enrichment program. And that has put things in a tricky place. Even though Donald Trump has said that he's obliterated their nuclear sites, they're still talking about the Iranians having the ability to develop a bomb. They're enriching uranium at rates that are unacceptable for the Israelis and for the Americans. So in many ways, that is a whole other conversation that is going to be had after the 60 days. So once the 60 days passes, that's when the nuclear conversation will come into effect, and that is when I think things could get seriously tricky. These 60 days are crucial. Just getting everyone there and then beyond that, how you put this nuclear deal in place is also going to be increasing. Incredibly tough.

[C]

We needed all of this for what reason?

[B]

It's a big question, right? How did we get here? Why did we get here?

[C]

It's a question that Israelis are going to go to the polls for. And I think we should have a whole episode about Netanyahu and his challengers because he's got some people on his tail this time, so definitely want to talk about that. But one other thing. Since you had this unusual access to this main cabin in the woods, maybe before we go, we could just close on this a little bit. What was your sense of him? Was he convincing to you? And the reason I'm focusing on him is in the context of what we were just talking about in Israel. Probably the biggest thing that they're concerned about is Tucker Carlson and his movement. They're very worried that Trump is going to dump Israel and that he's going to dump Netanyahu, that he's going to realize that holding on to Israel isn't worthwhile for him, that it's a personal liability. And that is something that I'm hearing from across the political spectrum, from very serious people, high level, that their biggest concern isn't even really Iran, and it's not the Hezbollah factor. It's that Trump decides these guys aren't worth it. That baby and Israel writ large, the Zionist project is not worth it, and what will that mean for the state of Israel? And that if there's a significant part of Trump's own base who's starting to encourage this, this, that he could follow suit. And I think that is one of the biggest concerns right now among all levels, the military and the political sphere that I've spoken to in Israel.

[B]

Tucker Carlson is an incredibly powerful, vocal voice speaking out against the Israeli government at the moment and the actions of the Israeli government. And he said to me, israel has been shafted in this deal. He said, I feel sorry for Israel because for years it's talked about this existential threat, and now they do face this existential threat because there are a lot of uncertainties here about America's support for Israel going forward. And, you know, he is talking a lot about these issues. He did have the ear of the president. A growing number of podcasters like Tucker Carlson are being very vocal and sort of talking about why is the United States supporting Israel unconditionally, why are we doing that? And they are creating this debate and dialogue within the country. And it is a public debate now, these sorts of conversations. And what JD Vad said about Israel the other day at a press conference where he said, it's a country of 9 million. You can't sort of bomb your way through these situations. You need to find other solutions. Americans don't talk about Israel in this way. American politicians don't talk about Israel in this way. So this has become a massive talking point in the country. Tucker Carlson might try to, in the way that he does, in that provocative way that he does, downplay his role and say, I'm just a podcaster in a shed. What do I know? You know, I'm unemployed. He kind of did that when I was pushing him. The point being that, you know, he. I can see the pull, the charisma. He has a lot of presence. He's got a huge following and he's increasingly vocal about America's relationship with Israel. So in many ways, those you spoke to in Israel who are concerned about these voices in America and where that's going to leave Israel going forward, they have reason to be concerned because there is a massive push around this unconditional support, support for Israel from the United

[C]

States and some that I've been speaking to out of concern for this. And they're seeing this for the first time, the United States weighing the cost benefit analysis of supporting Israel out in public. That was an unmentionable before. You didn't say, well, is supporting Israel worth doing or not doing? That just was a taboo subject. And the fact that he's openly questioning this and gaining traction with that has a lot of people in Israel very, very, very scared. Which is why some people say watch this fall because maybe if they can get rid of Netanyahu, he can be the fall guy. He can be the say, listen, we can move on. We are better than this. All of Gaza, the war, the dragging the US and others into the Iran war, that was him. Let's blame it on the person of Benjamin Netanyahu instead of on the state of Israel. That's what his opponents would like to see happen anyway.

[B]

And Richard, our listeners can watch my interview with Tucker Carlson across Sky News platforms. It'll coming out later in the week. I hope you enjoy the interview and you learn more about sort of Tucker Carlson's worldview and position now.

[C]

Interesting. And he's a power player right now. He's got a lot of people's attention. And in this new world, it's not just nation states who have power. Individuals have power. Elon Musk has power. Tucker Carlson has power. Individual increasingly do matter in this sort of non traditional world that we're entering into. It's been so great to see you, Yalda. You're in New York, which is my hometown city. It's your hometown and I'm heading that way pretty soon. But we're not going to cross paths.

[B]

I look forward to seeing you soon and thank you to our listeners for tuning in. That's it from us this week. Of course you can send us any of your thoughts or questions for next week's podcast. Usually place the worldatsky.uk thanks again for listening.

[C]

Great to be with you. How does a banana trigger a CIA backed coup? Do AirPods herald the arrival of a new global order?

[B]

What do LED lights say about the future of humanity?

[C]

I'm Ed Conway and in each episode of my new podcast, Stuff Matters. I take an object, crack it open and reveal the world shaping forces hidden inside.

[B]

This is economics told through the things

[C]

we think we understand.

[B]

Search Stuff Matters on your podcast app to listen and follow.