LEILA FADEL, HOST:
There are plenty of skeptics of the preliminary agreement between the U.S. and Iran. Among them is veteran diplomat Richard Haass, who served in both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. He's also president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Good morning, and welcome back to the program, Richard.
RICHARD HAASS: Thanks, Leila. Good to be with you.
FADEL: So you have written that this deal is a, quote, "massive victory for Iran." Walk me through what Iran's government is gaining here, how this is a victory.
HAASS: Well, it's a victory in part because it falls far short of our articulated goals. We haven't had regime change in any normal sense of the word. Instead, we have a harder-line government. Or - this regime is not being asked to give up principal parts of its military forces - its missiles. It's not being asked - its drones. It's not being asked to give up its support for groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. All the nuclear questions have been kicked down the road. It's going to be able to put tolls on use of the Strait of Hormuz in two months. So that's, you know, not bad. Plus, a lot of the financial benefits accrue to Iran now - the ability to sell oil that it won't have to discount because sanctions have been lifted. Assets that have been frozen for decades are going to be released.
So essentially, Iran's going to get quite a few economic benefits up front, which, by the way, will strengthen this regime. It's very bad for the Iranian people. It will allow them to rearm. It will allow them to, again, give support to these proxy groups. Plus, down the road, there's talk of a much bigger pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, a $300 billion reconstruction fund. So, you know, from the Iranian regime's point of view, this is an extraordinarily good deal.
FADEL: Yeah. That's a sanction, really, $300 billion of money that's been frozen. You said this isn't good for the Iranian people. How are they going to be impacted?
HAASS: Well, again, tens of thousands were killed early on in this crisis over the last - what? - four months. This regime now is, quote-unquote, "harder-line." It's as illiberal as you get. They are now going to get economic help. And what's so significant about that, Leila, is the economic mismanagement by this government over the last couple of decades has been their Achilles' heel. The currency was in free fall, terrible conditions for the Iranian people. And that was what was fueling these protests in the streets. So this money they're going to be getting in some ways relieves a lot of the pressure on the regime, but the money is unconditional. We're not saying, for example, you've got to let up on your repression. You've got to treat women better. You got to let people out of jail. So...
FADEL: So very few demands on the government for this money.
HAASS: None, esentially. Indeed, what's so interesting about the agreement, it says, the United States will not in any way interfere in Iran's internal affairs. That's quite a move back from a call for regime change.
FADEL: And the tens of thousands of people being killed, are you referring to both the thousands of people the Iranian government killed in protests and the thousands of people who've been killed in this war?
HAASS: I was mainly speaking about the former, at the hands of the regime. So for the opposition, this is a really bad outcome. For those who want to see a more Democratic Iran, this is a bad outcome.
FADEL: We heard Vice President JD Vance really go out and defend this deal in several media appearances, in a briefing. He said to The New York Times, if you think this is a bad deal, what is your alternative? So I'll put that question to you. What is your alternative?
HAASS: Well, it is a bad deal. There aren't great alternatives. And that's, again, a powerful argument we never should have started this war. This all could have been anticipated - the idea that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and get leverage for that, that it would be able to shoot off its drones and its missiles against neighboring countries. So at this point, the United States essentially decided to cut its losses. I think that's the only good thing you can say about this deal. But the real issue is not the deal so much as - that you could have gotten a better one. It's the argument for not having gone to war in the first place.
FADEL: Would you - I mean, if Iran came out as the big winner here, I mean, several goals of the U.S. just set aside, like containing ballistic missiles, I take it you would cast the U.S. as the losers here?
HAASS: Among the losers would be the United States, our reputation for competence. I think the Gulf countries, the Arab countries, now have to live with an emboldened, capable Iran. The Iranian people, we've always talked - we already talk about as a loser. I think Israel may be among the biggest losers. Its relationship with the United States has been badly damaged, and its freedom of action has been significantly curtailed.
FADEL: Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you.
HAASS: Thanks for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) 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.
