STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
We've called someone who negotiated with Iran in the past. Rob Malley was U.S. special envoy for Iran in the Biden administration and, before that, a lead negotiator in the Obama administration for the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. He's now at Yale and joins us. Rob, welcome back.
ROB MALLEY: Thanks for having me.
INSKEEP: What do you make of this text now that you've seen it?
MALLEY: So listen, I'd say the text is ambiguous, but at least it ends the war in Iran. Hopefully, it also ends the war in Lebanon. It opens the Strait of Hormuz. I think it's also - the MOU is also an indictment of the war that led to it for all the reasons we just heard, but at this point, far better than the alternative, which was to continue the conflict.
INSKEEP: It sounds like you think this is a bad deal. It's just that it was a bad war.
MALLEY: I wouldn't call it a bad deal. When people say that Iran is getting so much out of this, I mean, let's put things in perspective. The war cost them hundreds of billions of dollars, devastation of their infrastructure. People are talking about Iran losing 10% of the GDP this year. So compared to that, the economic benefits they're going to get out of this deal are peanuts. And I think the main thing is to make sure this memorandum of understanding holds and then learn the lesson - two lessons. No. 1, that the war itself was the original sin that led only to a military defeat for the United States and a global economic crisis. And secondly, the answer to military force when it doesn't work is not more military force.
INSKEEP: Our colleague Greg Myre just now noted something. The president has talked of it as a big deal, that the Iranians say in this agreement that they don't want a nuclear weapon, but haven't they always said they don't want a nuclear weapon?
MALLEY: Of course. This is the mystery and the oddity of President Trump, who could try to make something that is banal look like a historic achievement. But if that's what it takes for him to say that this is a good deal, I'm fine with it.
INSKEEP: The challenge, of course, always has been assuring the United States and others that Iran actually isn't going to get a nuclear weapon. How do you go about doing that?
MALLEY: Well, that's really the challenge of the next deal. I think the question of the nuclear negotiations that are going to follow, that's going to be far more complex. I see no way in which it could be reached within the 60 days that the two parties have allotted to it because it's not just what you just mentioned, which is going to be an extraordinarily challenging task. How do you really have the verification measures in place when Iran now - its nuclear program has been opaque for a very long time? And secondly, how do you devise the sanctions relief that the U.S. has promised Iran? That's going to take a long time. We may never get there. And if we don't get there, hopefully, we at least maintain the truce that currently exists.
INSKEEP: I take your point that Iran has suffered tremendous economic damage because of the war. Nevertheless, people were outraged in 2015 when you negotiated an agreement that included, I think, $1.7 billion for Iran. We're now talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, potentially, of investment in Iran. Could Iran use that money to support its regional proxies, do things the United States and Israel and others really wouldn't like?
MALLEY: First, the key word here is potentially. I mean, this is all premised on the notion that this bigger deal that I mentioned will be reached. There's so many question marks about that economic relief, the 300 billion investment that will be done in Iran. Who's going to invest that amount? The president has spoken about lifting all sanctions, which is extraordinary. But I assume that the price they're going to require of Iran to get there is going to be quite high. And again, it may never be achieved.
But if the notion - and, you know, I have to give President Trump credit on this. And among the enormous blunders and crimes that he's committed, every now and then, he stumbles on the right instincts. If, in fact, you could change the relationship with Iran to the point where they are integrated in the world economy but their international posture will have to change, their regional posture will have to change, why not? I don't think it's particularly likely, but to keep that out there, that at some point, the U.S. should normalize its relationship with Iran. This macabre dance between the two has gone on for way too long. You know, it's a dream. I think it's good to put it out there. I suspect it's going to be quite a while before we reach that point.
INSKEEP: After the nuclear deal in 2015 in the Obama administration, Congress passed a law requiring that any agreement over Iran's nuclear program from then on would have to pass through Congress. Is it your understanding of the law that this agreement has to be voted on by Congress?
MALLEY: I mean, a literal reading of the law - it's very hard to escape the fact that this should be voted on by Congress. In fact, some of the sanctions relief that the president has promised in this deal, in theory, it cannot be implemented for another 30 days. So it's problematic. I suspect the administration is going to try to ignore and circumvent the law, and I'm not sure who can enforce it. So you're right. In theory, according to the way the law is written, this should be submitted to Congress. Let's see what happens.
INSKEEP: Rob Malley, thanks so much for your insights - really appreciate it.
MALLEY: Thank you.
INSKEEP: He was involved in negotiating the first nuclear deal with Iran back in 2015. 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.
