Strategic Patience and Future Stability

It's considered this where every day we go deep on one big news story . Vice President JD Vance went to Switzerland to hold talks with Iran at a mountainside resort. They're trying to move forward the interim agreement to end the war. The question before us now is how much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently? The high stakes negotiations were strained from the start , despite what seemed like momentum last week. We have an agreement that was signed last night and it's sixty days after make a deal. Otherwise we will do things that won't make them happy. President Trump had signed a memorandum of understanding after the G seven summit in France, and soon after , Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a limited ceasefire that could keep Iran at the negotiating table , but the fighting in Lebanon resumed over the weekend. The Iranian military said it was closing the Strait of Hormuz in response, though U. S. Central Command has disputed that it's closed. Consider this. Vice President Vance warned that he could only stay in Switzerland for quote a day or two, but the U. S. and Iran remain very far apart . Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker told me that Iran is settling in for the long haul, so the US needs strategic patience if it wants long term stability in the Middle East. From NPR, I'm Ping Huang . It's considered this from NPR . The talks in Switzerland between the US and Iran to permanently end the war were dubbed the Lake Lucerne summit. To understand the hurdles for the negotiators at Lucerne, we turn to Ryan Crocker. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former ambassador to six Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon. Ambassador Crocker, welcome. Thank you What is your read on what can come from these talks? I think our expectations need to be firmly under control . It's not going to resolve itself in a day or two days or even very likely not in sixty days . So I think the emphasis has to be on stabilizing the ceasefires in the Gulf and in South Lebanon, projecting a lot of patience because this is going to be a long haul. Yeah , I mean, one moment the president says that the deal is on track, and then the next moment the Iranians say that they've closed the strait. What is your take on why the back and forth? Well, I think it reflects the fundamental volatility of the situation, and it also reflects the control the Iranians now have over the strait . They don't have to close the strait. They can just say they close the strait and that is going to put international shipping on edge. It's probably going to reduce the flow of traffic through the strait . This war has changed a lot of things, none of them for the better as far as the United States is concerned. So it's a strategy is what you're saying It is. Yeah The fighting in Lebanon is a recurring roadblock in achieving some kind of peace . Israel and Hezbollah both agreed to, and then they reneged on a ceasefire deal just in the last few days. I'm wondering what negotiators can do if neither of these parties seem interested in a truce ? Well, the MOUS is reasonably clear on this. It calls in its first paragraph for an immediate and permanent termination of hostilities on all fronts includ,ing Lebanon . And that is unconditional. It means that Hezbollah has to terminate hostilities, and it means Israel has to terminate hostilities. Obviously, Iran has to deliver Hezbollah and the U. S. has to deliver Israel. This is where it could all fall apart. Yeah . Regarding the U. S. role here, JD Vance said before he left yesterday that the U. S. would quote just have to manage Israel in Lebanon . Can the U. S. just manage them? We've got a long checkered history of dealing with Israel in Lebanon and dealing with adversaries of both the United States and Israel in Leban . I'm a veteran of the nineteen eighty two Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I was assigned to the embassy in Beirut then , in which Israel launched a full scale invasion all the way up to Beirut , which it occupied briefly , to eliminate the PLO. That's the Palestine Liberation Organization . That's right. They did that, but in the process, they helped give birth to Hezbollah a far more, formidable enemy that they have been engaged against on and off since nineteen eighty two . So if we're going to enforce and sustain a truce , it's going to take an awful lot of pressure on Israel . And again, Hezbollah and Iran are going to have to reciprocate. Israel is going to be looking for excuses to continue its campaign in South Lebanon, and we're going to have to exert an unprecedented amount of pressure to prevent that . Both the president and the vice president have said that they're putting pressure on Israel to come to a ceasefire in Lebanon. What do you make of that effort? Well, it's been an extraordinary undertaking . I can't think of a previous US administration that has been willing to use that kind of pressure on Israel , particularly in Lebanon . Whether they will sustain it and how the Israelis will react remain to be seen. The Israelis have always said that they are the masters of their own destiny. They will make their own decisions on war and peace, and that has certainly been the case in Lebanon . And clearly, the Israeliim Peris Minter is not happy with the status quo. He's made that, I think, clear, and the Israeli public is unhappy with the status quo, and they're looking at elections in the near term . So again, if calm is to prevail in South Lebanon, it's going to require an intensive, unprecedented , sustained effort on the part of the United States with Israel , and that can only have a chance of success if Hezbollah is similarly restrained. You've emphasized that long term stability depends on a sustained dialogue and not just military pressure. What would you advise the President to do right now? I would advise the president to exert something that is in short supply with him, strategic patience . The Iranians have it in abundance . They will settle in for a long haul here . And there are no quick fixes to this current crisis, not in the Gulf , and not with respect to Iran's nuclear capabilities and not with respect to South Lebanon. So we need some sustained patience. And again, President Trump is noted for his sustained patience. Tell me a little bit more about the strategic patience. This is a strategy that you've long advocated for in the Middle East. What does that look like ? What could that look like in this case? Well, in this case, it's a long war. It began some forty three years ago with the bombing of the U. S. embassy in Beirut. Iran has been, as it were, on a war footing with the US for more than four decades. The US is only episodically aware of that . So we've got to first adjust our sights here. That this has been a long sustained campaign . It does not end with this MOU , and we've got to think about the long haul. What does that mean in practical terms? What are our options? Again, to create a set of conditions that look like long term lasting stability in the Gulf and in South Leban on . What was this do? Well, it could change the dynamic. The current Iranian regime is very much on a war footing . Their new leadership is the hardest of the hard. They're all Iran revolutionary guard , veterans, they're all veterans of the Irani Iraq War. They know how to do war . What I'm not at all certain is that they know how to do peace . And we saw in January with the sustained violent demonstrations in Tehran and other Iranian cities a resolve on the part of the Iranian people that they want a better life. Now with the conflict raging, those voices are silent, but if we can obtain a sustained truce, a long term period of peace , we may see public opinion shift back again to that fundamental question, what has my government done for me lately ? And what the Iranian government has done for its people , of course, has been repressive, violent, given them no economic hope, little chance for a better future for their kids . That's what we want to get the focus back on. At this point, do you think that any of the goals of the war have been met in your view? Well, it's kind of hard to keep track of what our goals in the war have been. Clearly we've, done significant damage to Iran's infrastructure, including its military infrastructure. Its surface navy has been virtually obliterated . Its ballistic missile capacity has been significantly reduced , but they have shown an ability and incredible resilience and ability to keep on fighting. The fighting in Lebanon has killed at least four thousand people, according to the country's health ministry . And Ambassador Cracker, you were ambassador to that country many years ago. I'm wondering how you feel watching this war carry on. It's heartbreaking . Again , the Lebanese people have borne the brunt of this conflict , whether it was the PLO in the seventies and eighties or Hezbollah in the eighties, nineties, and two thousands . It's the Lebanese people have paid the price . And with more than a million displaced now, the strain on the Lebanese government and the human suffering is just immense . Then I would urge the administration to increase its funding for UN agency or for humanitarian reasons , but also to help stabilize the situation within Lebanon and to stabilize the Lebanese government. UNHCR, that's the UN's refugee agency. It's yeah, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees ? Because ultimately, a solution in Lebanon can only come through central government control. Right now, they need our assistance . And the best way we can deliver that would be through increased assistance to UNHCR for the displaced. Again, both for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Ryan Cracker is former US ambassador to Lebanon and is now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. Thank you. Thank you, Ping This episode was produced by Jason Fuller . It was edited by Sarah Robbins. Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning. It's considered this from NPR. I'm Pinghuang