Thomas L. Friedman on the Clash at the Core of the Iran Deal

How the world views of Jared Kushner and the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran can help explain the issue at the heart of the negotiations.

By Thomas L. Friedman and Daniel J. Wakin

The divide between Iran and America is, the Opinion columnist Thomas L. Friedman argues, ultimately about the difference between “Kushnerism” (named for the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner) and “Khomeiniism” (named for the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran). In conversation with the Opinion editor Dan Wakin, Friedman explains what he means and discusses what he sees as President Trump’s recent string of failures.

Thomas L. Friedman on the Clash at the Core of the Iran Deal

Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYTimes app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.

The transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Dan Wakin: I’m Dan Wakin, an international editor for New York Times Opinion. When President Trump signed an initial peace agreement with Iran last week, in some ways, it didn’t seem like much of a deal at all. The biggest problem remained unresolved: what to do about Iran’s nuclear program.

Vice President JD Vance was just in Switzerland to meet with the Iranians, trying to come to a lasting agreement. They’ve given themselves 60 days to get it done. It’s worth noting that the Obama nuclear deal took over a year and a half to negotiate. To discuss the latest, I’m here with my colleague, Opinion columnist Tom Friedman.

Hello, Tom. Thanks for joining me.

Thomas L. Friedman: Dan, great to be with you.

Wakin: Before we get into this week’s news, I want to go back to something you wrote in a column soon after the war started. You wrote, “We must remember that the timing of the end of this war will be determined as much by the oil markets and the financial markets as by the military state of play inside Iran.”

So, here we are with Trump nervous about high gas prices in the midterms. We have the same Iranian regime basically in place, but now with a younger leader. And Iran is well aware of the power they hold over the Strait of Hormuz. Given all that, what kind of negotiating position is the U.S. in, and what are your hopes for the outcome of this negotiation?

Friedman: Well, I would say that Trump ended this war with a TACO trade — the famous TACO trade described by Wall Street analysts: Trump Always Chickens Out.

In the end, Trump basically calculated that he had to end this war now in order to get oil prices down in time for the midterm elections.

So, what I predicted early on, that oil prices would determine this war as much as events on the battlefield, really played out. He basically sold out the State of Israel and the Arab Gulf states for the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.

Trump understood if gasoline prices and food prices kept soaring, as they’ve been since the start of this war, there would be a very high likelihood that he would lose those states.

If he loses the House, and if he loses the Senate — less likely, but a possibility — Trump would then be exposed to impeachment over the way he has enriched himself since he’s become president.

I think there’s a link between all of these things, and the reason we know this, Dan, is because Trump told us so. He said he was not going to be Herbert Hoover and preside over a recession.

Wakin: I want to talk a bit about how the negotiations have been going. I know there are conflicting reports depending on who you listen to, whether it’s U.S. officials or Iranian officials. But as of Tuesday morning, what do we know for certain has happened so far?

Friedman: There’s been a memorandum of understanding signed by the parties to forge a cease-fire in the war that would allow for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and for Iran to sell oil for dollars and begin to repair its economy.

This is a prelude for wider talks on removing Iran’s nuclear near-bomb-grade-ready fissile material.

That is the general headline, I would say. But we know the details are all to be determined.

Now, Dan, one of the rules I developed as a reporter in the Middle East is that in the Middle East, what people say to you in private is irrelevant. All that matters is what they’ll say in public in their own language.

The Middle East is a funny place. It’s kind of the opposite of Washington. In the Middle East, people lie to you in private and tell the truth in public in their own language. In Washington, people tell the truth in private and lie in public.

We already saw a demonstration of this rule just in the last 48 hours. Vice President Vance came out and said: Hey, the Iranians have promised to let in nuclear observers from the International Atomic Energy Commission. And the Iranians said: No, we’ve offered no such thing. So, I think this is going to be an ongoing problem for the administration. Whether the Iranians did say it in private in English, they’re clearly contradicting it in public in their language.

And there is a bit of divine justice here. I’m thinking about Vance. This is a man who sold his soul, his every principle, to be vice president to Donald Trump, and it’s like the Greek gods have punished him by making him responsible for ending a war that he opposed, started by Donald Trump. That said, Iran needs to be careful not to overplay its hand.

Wakin: Donald Trump, a president who has said, If things don’t go well, it’s going to be JD’s fault and not mine.

Friedman: Absolutely. So, you’re really only going to be able to see what is true and what is Memorex, what is not true, on the basis of what you see happening on the ground. I tend to discount all of these public statements.

At the end of the day, there are some very large, powerful forces at play, Dan. One is the one we alluded to earlier: Donald Trump needs this war to be over politically.

The prime minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu’s interests are just the opposite. His interest is that the war goes on for his politics. He needs to show that he is a war prime minister because the end of war brings for him a whole Israeli investigation and election over how he has conducted all of Israel’s policies since the Hamas invasion.

And Iran is divided, I believe, between Revolutionary Guards, who’d like to see the war go on because........

© The New York Times