STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Daniel Shapiro recalls the last time the United States made an agreement with Iran. He was U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration, which gave him a role as the U.S. made a nuclear deal in 2015 that Israel very much disliked. Dan Shapiro is now based in Tel Aviv. He joins us from there. Ambassador, welcome back.
DANIEL SHAPIRO: Thanks, Steve. Good morning. Good to be with you.
INSKEEP: OK. So we heard from the president that there was an agreement. But also that, quote, "nobody has seen it" and it isn't fully negotiated. The president making those equivocations after a lot of Republicans objected to whatever they were hearing. But do you feel you understand what this deal approximately is and how it's supposed to work?
SHAPIRO: It sounds like it's still work in progress. But I think we know the basic outlines of it. It's a fairly weak deal, but probably a necessary least bad alternative to end this ill-conceived war. Largely, it would mean opening the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, that that would alleviate the economic crisis that was caused when Iran closed it and caused inflation and gas prices and everything else to soar. And then there would be a period of negotiations - it's outlined for 30 to 60 days - to determine limits on Iran's nuclear enrichment - enriched uranium stockpile and further enrichment of uranium and the verification of that.
But Iran is very skilled and adept at dragging out those negotiations. It will probably last much longer than 60 days. And those negotiations would take place without a credible U.S. military threat because President Trump is not very likely to go back to major military operations as the midterms approach. And that means that we have less leverage in those talks.
INSKEEP: If Iran should reopen the strait, would they still have the power to close it when they want to?
SHAPIRO: This is unfortunately one of the outcomes of this war is Iran has demonstrated the leverage that comes with being able to shut down shipping in the strait. It was always a theoretical notion. It's been planned for and war-gamed for for decades. But they've never actually done it. Now they've demonstrated through their ability to drop mines in the water, to use drones and short-range missiles and other munitions from the coastline along the shore to threaten it.
And it doesn't take actual strikes against ships. It just takes making shippers and insurers so uncertain that they don't want to take the risk to make the shipping through the strait shut down. And that creates global economic havoc. And Iran now has proven that they have the ability to do that at any time of their choosing.
INSKEEP: Even if you think this is the least bad outcome, are Republicans right to be skeptical of this agreement as it's emerging?
SHAPIRO: Well, it's not surprising that they're skeptical. A lot of these Republican senators, some of the right-wing think tanks in Washington have been very critical of the nuclear deal that President Obama signed in 2015 that you mentioned. And the way this deal seems to be shaping up, it has a lot of similar characteristics as that deal, the JCPOA. It would not be a total dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program.
It would set some limits on enrichment and on their nuclear stockpile, but it wouldn't do that permanently. It wouldn't address their ballistic missile program. It wouldn't address support for terrorist proxies. And so it's not surprising that the same critics of the Obama deal are looking very unhappy and looking askance at the deal that this seems to be shaping up with.
INSKEEP: Well, let me raise another analogy. In 2015, Iran was paid in some way for this deal. There were stories about pallets of cash, there were unfrozen Iranian assets that were returned to Iran, and a lot of Republicans were outraged. It seems now in 2026, the Iranians again expect to be paid. They want unfrozen assets. They want sanctions relief or they want something. What are the implications of paying Iran to end the war the U.S. started?
SHAPIRO: So that's right. On Saturday, the reports were that perhaps there would be unfreezing of frozen assets to the tune of maybe $25 billion. Maybe it's that. Maybe it's that there would be waivers issued on sanctions so that Iran could sell its oil to China more freely. In either case, it means an influx of revenue to Iran.
It helps them recover from the economic crisis they've been in. It helps them resume their support of the terrorist proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon that they have long supported but have been constrained to do so lately. And so, again, those who were critical of the JCPOA because of the sanctions relief provisions that it contained are very likely to be unhappy with the sanctions relief provisions in this deal.
INSKEEP: Very briefly. Israel, where you are, does not seem to be in favor of this deal or any deal that's been proposed. Do I have that right?
SHAPIRO: Yeah, I think that's right. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made pretty clear throughout his career that he wants to work toward ending the Iranian regime. He'd hoped that would be the outcome of this war. It's not going to be. But he's really not able to criticize President Trump because of his own political standing as he heads into a difficult election. And Israel is not going to resume major military operations without the United States. So I think they will have to accept it.
INSKEEP: Daniel Shapiro is in Tel Aviv. He served as U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration. Ambassador, pleasure to talk with you again. Thanks.
SHAPIRO: Thank you, Steve. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
