Comparing current Iran policy to JCPOA

It's Consider This where every day we go deep on one big news story. Today, a closer look at President Trump's foreign policy aims. The State Department is busy trying to end a conflict in one part of the world while helping with rescue efforts in another. I know the president's made a full commitment to being supportive of Venezuela . On Thursday, Secretary of State Mark Rubio addressed reporters about the back to back earthquakes that rocked Venezuela. The U. S. pledged one hundred fifty million dollars toward relief efforts. But questions remain about whether the earthquake could upend Venezuela's stabilization process just months after the U. S. took its former president into custody. I don't think we're analyzing it through that lens. Obviously , you know, it's a setback in that regard, but we're going to get through it. And I think Venezuela's going to emerge stronger from it despite the tragedy that it's confronting right now. Rubio made those marks in Bahrain. He had been visiting several Gulf nations to talk with them about the preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran. If we can make a deal with Iran, that's good for everybody. We want to do it. We're going to give it every chance to succeed, but also to make the point that we're not going to do anything or agree to anything that they're not aware of, that they're not that our partners in the area are not aware of, that our partners in the area are not aligned with and that in any way could undermine their security and their stability. Consider this. The United States is directly involved in two major global events. What do they tell us about President Trump's foreign policy priorities? We will hear from the State Department spokesperson. From NPR, I'm Scott Tetra . It's consider this from NPR . This week, the State Department has been directly involved with two major global events, negotiations to end the war with Iran and sending foreign assistance to Venezuela after a deadly earthquake. Tommy Piggett is the spokesperson for the State Department and joins us now. Welcome. Thanks for having me on. Let's start with Venezuela. You know, the administration did downplay the importance of foreign aid for more than a year. Why is this different? What else is do you have to add on that front? Well, look, I think a couple things here first when it comes to foreign assistance. What we've been clear is that foreign assistance needs to be effective. It needs to go where it's meant to go, and it needs to be aligned with the U. S. national interests. I think those are principles that are pretty uncontroversial, but unfortunately what we saw under USAID was often disjointed aid, aid that took longer actually to deploy. And I think an example of this that's so important is the fact that we were able to stand up at the State Department a task force to respond to these earthquakes instantaneously that had under one roof coordination when it came to assistance, consular services for Americans, coordination with other government other agencies. We're seeing that incredibly fast, that incredibly large response to the people of Venezuela to assist. And I think it's also important to point out that we also saw this massive response in response to Hurricane Melissa. Hurricane Meliss , we saw that quick response, that coordinated response. So I think the argument we would make and I think this is borne out by the facts is that by bringing these programs under the State Department to allow for better coordination, we're allowed to move quicker, we're allowed to move more effectively, and we're allowed to actually deliver assistance to where it's needed. And you're not worried about the loss of expertise, the loss of a lot of on the ground relationships that could have helped the aid move faster . We're actually seeing an expansion of on the ground relationship s. I mean, Venezuela, of course, is a powerful example of that. The actions that President Trump took allowed for the development of so many conversations and relationships that did not exist previously, including the establishment of a U. S. embassy in Venezuela that allows us to provide emergency services to American citizens in the region. But that's also something that's replicated across the world. We're seeing a new type of foreign assistance. We're building capacity in these nations, building stronger relationships. And fundamentally, this is a bit different than the earthquake example where you have to respond with assistance in response to a national disaster . But when we see assistance programs in general, fundamentally saying,i We're building your capacity so we can have aid programs that eventually end because they've been successful in building capacity to respond. Natural disasters were responding as appropriate. I want to make sure we have time to talk about that trip to the Gulf, but one more question on the earthquakes. The initial money being spent, there are obviously really major immediate needs here. How is the United States thinking about these longer term issues, the rebuilding, everything that needs to come along with it once search and rescue is done. How focused will the US be on that? Well, that's something that we're definitely focused on. Of course, the priority now are search and rescue teams. Urban search and rescue teams, we're seeing the deployment of hundreds of personnel, including heavy equipment in order to assist in that effort. The United States is on the ground, the United States is there, the United States is helping. Of course, we're also working with our partners in the region, and we're also delivering humanitarian and medical supplies. So our initial prior to makeity is sure that we have the search and rescue teams. We're delivering that assistance, working with the unmatched capability and operational capacity of DOW . And then we're going to be here. We're going to help. And that is something that's demonstrated by the scale of our response. You're just back from this diplomatic trip to the Gulf. There's been a lot of skepticism, a lot of worries from leaders of our Gulf allies about this agreement. How did Secretary Rubio respond to those concerns Well, look, as Secretary Rubio said, we're not going to agree to something that undermines the security of our Gulf allies and partners. He made that incredibly clear at the GCC ministerial meeting, which had our Gulf partners and allies at that meeting . One of the main goals of this trip was to thank our Gulf partners and allies, especially the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain, for the resilience, the support they gave us, the leadership they have shown in the face of Iran's attacks. We also saw the resumption of operations of our embassy in Kuwait with Secretary Rubio marking that by raising the flag over the embassy taking part in that ceremony. So there is productive conversations, a clear message sent that we are not going to agree to something that undermines the security of our Gulf partners. But does it? The alliance and work together is continuing to grow. Doesn't allow Iran to continue to have conventional missiles and have more power over commerce in the Strait of Hormuz , doesn't that undermine their security? Well, look fundamentally, as we saw in the GCC joint statement, we saw a powerful statement that's saying the GCC members of the United States rejects any circumstance where we're going to see any sort of fees or tolls or whatever you may call it through the strait. But it's still happening right now. Well, it was a clear and unambiguous message that we're not going to agree to anything that has that. And what we saw first of all with Operation Epic Fury was dismantling of a conventional weapons military shield. The results of Operation Epic Fury have already made the region and the world safer. What we are seeing now is a clear effort to make sure Iran does not rebuild a nuclear program and a clear statement from that joint statement that we're not going to have a scenario where nations charge tolls or fees for moving through an international waterway. I guess there's been a lot of reporting that those Iranian missile levels are the same relatively the same level as they were before the war began. And as we saw in recent days, it's still it's still blocking traffic in the strait . Well, what we saw through Operation Epic Fury is the decimation of their military capabilities, the conventional shield they were trying to build, their Navy, their air force, their defense and industrial capacity. We have seen that. We also saw the effects of the blockade and the maximum pressure policy. The president is a deal maker and there are clear things he wants to see. There's no questioning what the president wants to see here. The Iranian regime not having a nuclear weapon , and the Secretary's trip here reinforced the strong partnership that is continuing to grow between the United States and our Gulf allies and partners. When you were last a guest on NPR, you said repeatedly that when it comes to any nuclear agreement, that deal would not be another JCPOA. Many people, including many Republicans, say it's exactly that. Why are they wrong? Well, the Vice President outlining many of those reasons. First of all, the context where we are is so important, the decisive result s of Operation Minuthammer, the decisive results of Operation Epic Fury, already making the world safer, obliterating that nuclear program. Also the provisions that have been so clearly laid out a conditions based agreement for any sort of reintegration or other sort of unfreezing of funds, whatever may have you, is based off of actions taken by the Iranian regime. So the context of this is incredibly important and also the fact that we see a condition based agreement with those objectives so clearly outlined. Why is the three hundred billion dollars reconstruction plan that's gotten a lot of attention? Why is that substantially different than the Obama administration agreement? Well, we're talking about it's a conditions based agreement, a conditions based off of act ions, and that is so important. When we look at the JCPOA, we saw the sending we saw the sending of cash to the Iranian regime. We saw the Iranian regime with a time limited agreement that did not really actually substantially address their nuclear program in our opinion. And what we're seeing now are strong actions from the president of the United States to dismantle their conventional weapons , to obliterate their nuclear program, and also to make sure we have an agreement that makes sure they never rebuild that nuclear program. Tommy Pickett spokesperson for the U. S. State Department. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me in. After this conversation first ran, U. S. Central Command announced the U. S. conducted strikes on Iran in response to an Iranian drone hitting a commercial cargo ship on Thursday . It's not clear how these actions impact the ceasefire agreement. This episode was produced by Christopher Harlan Dunaway and Karen Zamora with Audio Engineering by Ted Mei, our director is Jonas Adams. It was edited by Patrick Jerin Waternan and Tinbeat Army, our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning. Thanks to our Consider this plus listeners who support the work of NPR journalists and help keep public radio strong. Supporters also hear every episode without messages from sponsors and unlock bonus episodes of Consider This. You can learn more at plus dot nprot. org