BREAKING: US SEIZES ANOTHER Iran Ship As Talks In Question

Good morning, everybody.

Happy Tuesday. I have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have, Crystal?

Indeed, we do. As we begin this morning, major questions about whether or not peace talks in Islamabad or are on or off. Jeremy Scala is going to join us to try to parse through the latest of what we know and what his latest reporting is. So very fortunate to be joined by him.

We're going to take a look at the economic fallout. Trump saying directly that his energy secretary is wrong about when gas prices will be coming back down. The UAE is asking the U.S. for a potential bailout. We'll get the response there, as well as other Gulf Arab state fallout that we're already seeing. Trump is having to go out and promise he is not controlled by Israel. This comes in the wake of very interesting Fox News appearance from Ro Khanna, where he is fighting with Maria Bartiromo,

so we will bring you that. We've got a round of discussions on anti-Semitism, including a college student who is being prosecuted for a joke about Netanyahu. And Palantir is out with a new, very dystopian manifesto

that we are going to dig into as well. Yeah, I don't know, it's been out for a while, but took the internet by storm, so I'll be excited to talk about that. Thank you to everyone subscribing, breakingpoints.com, become a premium subscriber. We're doing our AMA later today where we will enlighten anyone.

I missed yesterday, unfortunately, due to some car trouble out of state, but perhaps you will find out how I feel about marijuana during the AMA. You can pay for that privilege. Uh, yeah. Otherwise.

Well played, sir.

I will exclusively reveal how I feel about weed.

We're all waiting with bated breath. Yep, yep.

BreakingPoints.com. Otherwise, please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel, and if you're listening to this podcast, please share an episode with a friend. Really helps other people find the show. But let's go ahead and start with all of these crazy updates even just this morning,

breaking with this Iran ceasefire negotiations.

Yeah, so just to bring everybody up to speed as best I can, the negotiations have been on and off. We're getting reports from mainstream outlets, mostly with Pakistani sourcing that the Iranians are planning to attend negotiations in Islamabad. Yet we're getting a lot of tough signaling from the Iranians,

this in the wake of that ship seizure, which was a real escalatory move and a lot of triumphalist talk from Trump that seems intended to humiliate them. Now this morning, we've got a couple more things for you. Let's put this first part up on the screen here.

We've got an announcement from the Department of War that U.S. forces just conducted a right of visit maritime interdiction and boarding of the stateless, sanctioned MT Tiffany without incident in the Indo-Pak Com area of responsibility. As we've made clear, we'll pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran anywhere that they operate.

International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels. The Department of War will continue to deny illicit actors and their vessels of freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain. This consistent with the threat to that the. would expand the blockade basically globally to go after any ships that were planning, that had any association with Iran. So again, in terms of whether or not these talks

are even going to happen, this would be another bitter pill that Iran would have to swallow and really sort of a concession that they would have to make in order to go to the table, because the understanding that they had Friday was, okay, we're going to say

that the Strait of Hormuz is open. You are also going to remove your blockade. But Trump insisted that we're going to keep our blockade in place indefinitely until some sort of deal is struck. We had the seizure of the ship yesterday.

Today we have this news, so not a good sign. No, and actually the seizure of these ships is much more about Iran's war effort than it actually is in terms of oil. So again, there is a lot of news that's been coming out about this blockade, a lot of fake news actually from the American and the Iranian side, claiming multiple violations and people to go through. So Lloyd's actually crunched some of the data.

About 27 different ships were actually able to go through. So Lloyd's actually crunched some of the data. About 27 different ships were actually able to get through. Some of them were oil related. Now this is where you need to pay quite a bit of attention is that this was quote, without incident in the Indo-Pekom area of responsibility. So we don't know exactly where and what,

but you can take a couple of different clues. So in this ship and in a previous ship that was seized, yes, I think it was yesterday that you guys covered, both of those were either en route from China and are suspected to have some sort of either military technology or assistance and or there's a specific chemical I was reading about

which is very helpful to the Iranian missile program. And so actually, what this blockade has been about now so far in terms of the actual enforcement actions has been on trying to quell any of the military technology or military infrastructure needed to rearm for the war, not necessarily just for oil, which I think, again, you would only really do if this wasn't about

economic pressure, but if we intended to restart the war, and this was kind of a message to the Iranian war machine who is doing its best to dig itself out and to re-up for any potential reigniting of hostility. So again, it's very, very unclear. The number of ships that have actually gone through and haven't gone through,

but it is a major escalation to be boarding Iranian ships at sea in the middle of a blockade, also at a time where allegedly in some sort of a ceasefire. It definitely puts all of the, you know, talks at risk, but more so it just shows the mixed messages that are happening in Tehran. I also spoke, you know, to a couple of people, and one of the different—I mean, this is

basically an open source as well. The biggest difficulty for talks with Iran are actually very similar to ours. Who does the vice president speak for? Does he speak for the president? Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff, who do they really speak for, right? Everything with the vice president, they have trust, but it's not really negotiating with him

if he's calling back to Trump eight different times. Well, Golobov and those guys, they don't have total authority necessarily to make a deal. So they've gotta go through this Byzantine network of IRGC couriers to get to the Supreme Leader. How alive and awake is he?

Nobody has any idea, right? And so on the Iranian side, that's why I think you saw with the foreign minister when he's declared the strait open and then the IRGC immediately said close. Guys, guess what? We killed the only person in the country at any respect.

I know it feels like ancient history. The Ayatollah, he was the only guy who had basic control over everybody. Now, I mean.

Whose word was final.

Yeah, his word was law, right? And he actually could give an order on a phone. This guy, I mean, you've got a foreign minister who's seen as more amenable, Goluboff and those people, they definitely seem to want some sort of a talk, but then these newer IRGC commanders, I think we talked about it previously in one of our shows from the Financial Times, they're much more hardline, and they're like,

no, that's not gonna happen. So internal warfare inside the system, the system was Byzantine no matter what. It really relied on the Ayatollah as the total arbiter. It's not meant for this current system. That's why the IRGC was very effective in war,

because they had immediate command and control, the ability to horizontally escalate, it makes it very difficult to have to sign some sort of a deal. So when Vance is sitting across the table, who's he really sitting across the table from? Right, it's the same question on both sides. It makes it very, very difficult.

Well, and there was all this will here, Juan, here with regard to J.D. Vance. At one point yesterday, Trump said that Vance was already en route to Tehran report. During the show yesterday, we had to change what was being reported because things were shifting so much. And it is significant because, you know, I don't know that this respect is really deserved,

but the Iranians have no use for Whitkoff and for Kushner whatsoever. And if the negotiations were just Whitkoff and Kushner leading that delegation, like, I don't think we should even bother to really cover them. They would be going nowhere. They really insist on having J.D. Vance there because they feel that he has been more opposed to war.

They don't feel like he is as much a direct asset of Israel as Whitkoff and Kushner are. So that's why it was significant, all this question of whether he's going or not. The latest understanding is that he is leaving today to go to Islamabad for these talks. We still have no idea whether or not the Iranians are going to go. Let's go ahead and put the latest Trump truth up on the show. This is A0B, because again, this is not a great sign in terms of trying to extend, calm

the waters enough that Iran could feel that they could show up at these negotiations without it just be completely humiliating. Trump tweets this out or truths this out, Iran has violated the ceasefire numerous times. Now, of course, Iran is looking at the US and also looking at Israel, which continues to bombard Lebanon, albeit at a lower level than previously, and certainly feels like the ceasefire is being violated on the US and Israeli side as well.

And so yesterday, I put A1 up on the screen. First we were getting all these reports, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post were saying, okay, the Iranians are going. And like I said before, that information appeared to be coming from the Pakistanis. It appeared that the Iranians were telling the Pakistanis, or possibly it's hopium from the Pakistanis, that they were planning to attend.

But then we started getting all of these very tough statements from Ghalibaf, from Arachi, from every significant player on the Iranian side. Here Ghalibaf says, Trump, by imposing a siege and violating the ceasefire, seeks to turn this negotiating table in his own imagination into a table of surrender or to justify renewed warmongering. We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats.

In the past two weeks, we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield. That new cards on the battlefield piece, that's consistent with the reporting that they've been aggressively trying to rebuild and recover from some of their losses as much as they can in this short window of the ceasefire. It does not outright say we aren't going to the talks, but obviously signaling that they are unhappy with what the U.S. has been doing and much more hard-line rhetoric than where we were on Friday when you had Araci saying the street is basically open and signaling that they wanted to deescalate in order to get back to the table.

So that's where things stand. And I'll say, Sagar, this is a truly very pivotal moment. The temporary ceasefire expires depending on your counting of this either today or tomorrow. Trump said tomorrow, so maybe he just sort of like extended the know, extended the deadline a day just unilaterally.

Let's take it Islamabad time.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Anyway, it's it's set to expire very shortly. And you know, we've got a possibility of, OK, does everybody come back to Islamabad? And both sides have an interest in getting a deal. They do. You know, the Iranians want sanctions relief.

They want some sort of way out of this. This has been very devastating for them, even as they have been able to assert control and strategically have a lot of victories here. It still has been very devastating for them, and they need that sanctions relief in order to be able to fully recover, rebuild, and maintain their power, because economically, they were on very shaky ground with their own population. So that's very important for them. Obviously, Trump needs to get out of this thing because it's an absolute disaster for

him. The, you know, gas prices are still very high. We're going to talk more in the show about this looming economic crisis, which draws closer every single day that this continues. So he has an incentive here, too. But the divide is possibly unbridgeable.

So we really are kind of on a nice edge right now about whether or not these talks even continue and if they don't continue, you know, does Trump just sort of walk away and tell the Israelis you're on your own, we're done here? Or do we go back to the escalation trap that Robert Pape has talked so much about?

I think on a long enough timeline, the escalation trap is inevitable. In the interim, Trump truly, I mean look, all the reporting, I can only take it somewhat at its word, is he's over the war, he wants it to be over, he doesn't want to resume full-blown combat hostilities, you saw how it didn't

go well for us, didn't go well for the allies. I think this gray space is what we're going to be living in now for quite some time. In the same way that we lived in the gray space of the June to whatever, the June to February 28th attack where it was will they, won't they, talks, no talks. I mean, in some ways, while the no war benefits the United States

because oil prices are relatively stable, still much higher than where they were, but relatively stable. It benefits Iran too. They have, you know, they can rearm, they can re-consolidate command and control, they can re-look at some of the targets, get some more satellite data, all of that. However, I do think what the Iranians are showing, and look, also for them, they can, in the same credible way that Trump wants to be like, see, I did everything I took to make a deal.

Their population, we're not there, you and I have no idea. At the end of the day, most people don't want to be bombed incessantly or at war. So maybe their population has to be made to feel that we really did do everything we possibly could to avoid this before we enter't bet on a total war resumption like immediately, but you know, that's the risk

is this is the tail, we were already, after the straits were closed after two to three weeks, it was the worst case scenario economically that we could have ever foreseen. And that's, don't just ask me, ask the war planners and everybody else in the government

who's speaking honestly. So you're right, I mean, the risk of it is incredibly, incredibly high. I don't know where things are gonna go. If I had to bet, sometime this week people will sit down. But as we've learned now, sitting down does not translate to real success, not when you're dealing with an erratic person like Donald Trump

who is on again, off again, blockade, no blockade, seizure. They still, it's very Vietnam-esque in that there's all these talks happening, but at the end of the day, they believe that pressure itself is the only thing that will result in success. And that's just not correct now so far.

The other side has to save face, they get a vote, and it's very possible that very soon, they may just say, we're fed up with this,

and they restart the war on their terms.

And if that course the Israelis, the whole way, will be, and they will be bound and determined to get back into this war and do everything that they possibly can to effectuate that outcome, because for them, the war ending or even pausing at this point is just wholly unacceptable. And for Netanyahu personally, in terms of all

of his corruption issues and his political standing, et cetera, he finds it to be utterly unacceptable. So that's obviously the continued wild card that hangs over all of this. So with all of that being said, let's go ahead and bring in Jeremy Scahill for his assessment of where things stand right now. Joining us now is great friend of the show and Dropsite News' own Jeremy Scahill. Great to see you, Jeremy.

Good to see you, man.

Great to see you, Jeremy. Good to see you, man. Great to see both of you. So what is your latest sense of whether the Iranian delegation is going to show up in Islamabad or not?

Well, you know, the entire vibe right now in Tehran has been that Iran believes that it has greater leverage now than it's had at any point. They were really reluctant to engage in this two-week pause because they were concerned that the U.S. and Israel would use it to try to rearm or reposition themselves to launch another attack. And the Iranians, I'm told, were more than willing to go forward and do another round of negotiations as long as it was led by J.D. Vance and not Whitcoff and Kushner. And they, to their mind, had a breakthrough last Friday when Abbas Arrachi, the Iranian foreign minister, posted

that the Strait of Hormuz was going to be reopened. And there was, I'm told, a sort of backdoor understanding that Arrachi would post that, and then Trump would say what he wanted about the good news. And that is what happened initially. Trump said thank you. In fact, he referred to it as the Strait of Iran rather than the Strait of Hormuz.

But then whether he got called by the Israelis or other people started influencing him or he was watching on social media, Trump then moments later says, wait a minute, no, we're keeping our blockade in force. And so what that kicked into motion was a series of events where the Iranians said, wait a minute, we're not going to move forward with another round of negotiations as long as Trump is engaged in this erratic, threatening messaging

and that they have this blockade enforced. And then you had an incident where the US Navy actually shot at an Iranian ship and seized it and took custody of it. And what I'm told is that in the discussions that took place that were mediated by Pakistan in Islamabad,

that Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and other Iranian officials made clear to Vice President J.D. Vance that in order for another round to occur, there couldn't be this kind of threatening rhetoric from the United States.

So it wasn't just the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, it was in fact Trump's rhetoric and the Iranians weren't just saying, we don't like this. They were saying we had a diplomatic understanding that this is not how things were going to go down. So that's what caused this situation where there were reports that like JD Vance had his bags packed and was on the plane or his plane was imminently going to land. And once again, Trump's erratic behavior combined with the belligerence seems to have caused a problem moving forward.

But the sense I get from the Iranians is that they are interested in reaching a deal. They are interested in talking, but they don't believe that they're walking into this as the weaker party on a tactical level. They think Trump is in trouble. Yeah, Jeremy, it's very, very difficult to decipher. And let's be clear, we're recording this in the morning, about an hour before you came on, the United States took another Iranian ship.

And so that's what happened about an hour ago. At the same time, all weekend, Trump is touting some sort of JCPOA 2.0. Let's put A3 up here on the screen. Trump says, the deal we are making with Iran will be far better than the JCPOA, commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal. It was a guaranteed road to a nuclear weapon, etc.

If I did not terminate that deal, he goes on to trash. But he says, it will be something the entire world will be proud of, instead of the years of embarrassment and humiliation that we've been forced to suffer due to incompetent and cowardly leadership. So at the very same time, Jeremy, he's belligerent, he's seizing ships, he's threatening attacks. This morning he said Iran has violated a ceasefire numerous times.

Just yesterday, he is saying maybe we'll do JCPOA 2.0. We'll do some sort of Iran nuclear deal.

How do the Iranians interpret these mixed signals?

Yeah, I mean, this is whiplash diplomacy. And in fact, Donald Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal profile about him recently, seems to think that by intentionally acting this way and making derogatory references about Islam, et cetera, that somehow that's a language that the Iranians are going to respect or it's going to move the needle. And I think actually the opposite is true.

I see no evidence whatsoever that this is having, you know, the impact that Trump thinks it is. In fact, as we've talked about repeatedly on this show, it's been the US that has been over and over asking for discussions or talks with Iran. On the issue of this JCPOA thing, I think it's important to say something that I don't often see mentioned, and that is that the entire rationale for this war, the idea that he's going to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, the entire thing was based on an epic

lie and the terms that are on the table right now are in no meaningful way any different from what Iranian negotiators had put on the table in Geneva as of February 27th, the day before the United States launched this war. I've been told by multiple Iranian officials and insiders that Iran is not going to agree to hand over to the United States its enriched uranium, that they are discussing a supervised dilution of it, a much more robust presence of international inspectors inside of Iran.

Trump certainly could say that he's gotten some terms that extend beyond what the JCPOA provided for. I think that's true, but that was also true back in February. And the Iranians that I'm speaking to, officials that is, are speaking in a very derisive manner

about Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner. On the one hand, they're saying they had no technical know-how, they didn't understand the significance of what we were putting on the table. And on the other hand, Iranians told me that they have intelligence that Witkoff and Kushner, particularly Kushner, that they were getting information from the Israelis during the negotiations.

In other words, they're saying that they have intelligence that indicates that Netanyahu was deeply involved and sticking himself in the middle of this negotiation or discussion process. So it's a combination of technical ignorance and a total lack of understanding of the issues that professional negotiators would be understanding. And then the fact that the Iranians are saying, we know that at various turns, it seemed like we were making progress.

And then Whitcoff or Kushner start talking to Netanyahu, and then things go south.

How much unity is there on the Iranian side, though? Because it seems that there's been a bit of a divide in desired approach between the Iraqis and Ghalibafs of the world and the IRGC command. Is that also a challenge for them if we get back to the negotiating table here in terms of having the authority

to strike some sort of deal?

You know, I think, and I'm basing this on talking to well-informed Iranian sources, I think there's been a very robust debate inside of the echelons of power within Iran. I don't think that that is fictional at all. You definitely have people that are very concerned,

if not angered, that this two-week temporary ceasefire was brokered. There were people pushing for Iran to keep fighting on, believing that they had the United States and Israel backed into a corner, with Israel's supply of interceptors dwindling, with Trump in chaos,

with the global economy in shambles, with the Gulf Arab countries just absolutely livid that this war was extending on, with the prospect of, if Trump and Netanyahu kept bombing, that you were going to have a great escalation of attacks against infrastructure in the GCC countries that you could have started

to see more American soldiers being killed. So clearly there were Iranians that were saying we should absolutely not have any kind of a pause. But I would also say that there's a political propaganda aspect to this psychological warfare where you have these narratives largely promoted by anonymous US officials and Israelis that there's sort of this massive split happening that the IRGC is, you know, is angry with Arachi, the foreign minister and Ghalibaf is doing this. I think what we what we've really seen in a clear way is that Iran is a nation of institutions.

Ghalibaf, one inside analyst told me this morning, Ghalibaf would not be leading this delegation or making these proclamations if he was not empowered by the Supreme National Security Council and it was signed off on by Moshtaba Khamenei and his office. So I think that that's true. I think there's a lot of exaggeration to that.

There certainly are debates within Iranian society. One other thing that I think is important to point out is, and I spoke this morning to a very famous Iranian analyst, Hassan Ahmadian, and he said to me, can you name another instance that you can think of, of a country whose political, religious, military senior leadership was assassinated and then it turned around and was able to fight a world superpower to a total standstill where the President of the United States is the one who seems to

be desperate for an off-ramp. He was saying that in response to this question of, isn't Iran in a sort of crumbling state? Isn't it backed up against the wall? And he's saying, point out to me another example of something like this going down.

It's really fascinating because like you said, from the Trump side, let's put A5 here on the screen. All weekend, and this also seems to be very intentional, is Trump wants a deal. He's also saying, I'm winning a war by a lot. He says that Iran is losing $500 million a day, that the blockade will not be taken off until there is a deal.

It is, quote, absolutely destroying Iran. And so he simultaneously wants a deal. He's threatening action. There's also real action that's taking place on the high seas. Jeremy, you just discussed very eloquently, you know, the problems on, potential problems on the Iranian side about factions. But it seems to be the same case here in the U.S.

You know, from Saeed Morandi, who we spoke to here on the show, he was part of the Iranian delegation. There were major weird communication things happening on the U.S. side. Jeremy, Islamabad officials are leaking this morning. They do expect some talks to happen. But my question is about how much we should read even into talks.

Like if talks do occur, how positive of a signal is that for some sort of extension of a ceasefire? And would Iran even want an extension of a ceasefire?

I mean, think first of the incredible risks to Donald Trump. If the United States does decide to resume this war, the Iranians are saying that they've spent the last two weeks replenishing their technology and their launch capacity. And some of that may be exaggeration, but I'm certain that it's true. I mean, there's already satellite evidence to indicate that they've cleared out some of the mountain bases where they have launchers and other equipment, these so-called missile

cities. So there is tremendous risk. And the fact is that US military infrastructure has been damaged to a tremendous degree in the Persian Gulf, Israel would certainly be hit very hard. It may well happen. Trump may decide to move forward and try to resume strikes thinking that it will be in some form of a limited capacity. But what I was

told by a senior Iranian official is that if Donald Trump does decide to do this, that Iran is going to cut off indefinitely all diplomatic channels, meaning they are not going to just allow a few more days or another week of bombing and then come back to the table. Also, Iranian officials told me that they've been engaged in parallel discussions with their own strategic partners, including nuclear powers.

By that, I take it to mean China primarily, but also likely Russia, about what it looks like to establish a different form of deterrence or restore what they perceive as regional balance. And so, Iran is not just putting all of its eggs in the basket of making a deal with the

United States. It believes that China and Russia are not going to want this to go on. And so part of what we're seeing is that the Iranians are telling the Chinese in particular, yes, in good faith, we're going to try to make a deal with the United States, but if Trump, who's an erratic, unpredictable, whimsical character, decides to move forward

and Israel wins the day and they try to go for completely smashing the Iranian state, then we have no alternative but to say to China and Russia, hey, what are you gonna do about this now? And I think that's gonna become a real story in the coming weeks.

Interesting. Jeremy, Trudeau-Parsi has been saying he thinks the most likely outcome is that, you know, whether the talks happen or not, it's unlikely that because the two sides are so far apart, it's unlikely that an actual deal will be struck, but Trump may just walk away, leaving a sort of, you know, limbo state where there's no sanctions relief, Iran still has control of the Strait of Hormuz, Israel's left to its own devices to do whatever things they're going to do. Do you think that's an acceptable state for Iran?

Do you think that that is a sort of stable status quo, new status quo that could be reached out of all of this?

I asked that exact question last night to a senior Iranian official because Joe Kent, who just left as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center a few days ago, actually posted that very concept on Twitter, on X, saying that there's a third option, which is Trump could just sort of decide to end the war and walk away from it. I think there's a case to be made that Iran benefits on a strategic level by being attacked by the United States or by having the looming threat of

war because it can respond in an asymmetric way. And Iran has been able to win by preventing the United States and Israel from achieving their objectives. And there is an argument that I think is a compelling one from a purely American point of view, which is that if Trump were to say, listen, the Strait of Hormuz has to be dealt with by Europe, China, all these other countries that are the primary forces using it. We've already massively degraded Iran. Okay, they don't want to make a deal.

Let's ratchet up the sanctions. Let's try to continue with our covert and overt support for attempts at armed insurrection inside of Iran. Let's let's try to continue with our covert and overt support for attempts at armed insurrection inside of Iran Let's let their economy continue to crumble. Let's let them weaken it We'll pull back because actually mission is already accomplished. So watch what's gonna happen to them There's a case to be made that that you know from an American perspective. That would be the wisest Yeah, where Trump just sort of walks away what the Iranian official though said to me

He pushed back and said, you know, the people that are promoting this, yes, it does seem like it would be strategically wise of Trump to a degree, but they're underestimating the strength of Iranian institutions. And they also are failing to look at other parts of history where we've been in much more dire economic straits. So what they're saying is that they're leaning into their alternative alliances, that they believe that much of the world now sees the US and Israel for what they are, and that the dynamics have shifted to such a degree that Iran

believes that it could endure that scenario. And in fact, a senior official told me he thinks it's most likely that you're not going to have a comprehensive, detailed technical agreement, certainly not with the Trump administration. And the most likely scenario is a kind of vague backing away from this, perhaps in the context of a very limited sort of deal.

Last question before we go. Why would they allow that? Because they think they can weather the storm with Chinese loans or Russian loans or, I

mean-

The Iranians, you mean? Yeah, the Iranians. Why would they want that?

Why would they not restart the war to proceed to a final consensus? No, I don't think that they—I don't believe at all that that's what they want. I think that they very much want to have sanctions relief. I think that they very much want to have their tens of billions of dollars unfrozen. I think they believe that they're being reasonable on what they're offering on enriched uranium and the kind of oversight mechanisms that they would be willing to allow inside of Iran that may well extend beyond what Obama was able to get in 2015.

I don't think they want that at all. I think more what the senior official was saying to me is, we're realistic about who we're dealing with here. And if people think that Trump walking away in that manner is going to mean that we crumble, fall apart, and the Islamic Republic ceases to exist, that they're underestimating us, just as the world has underestimated us

since February 28th. That's what it is. No, I think Iran wants to make a deal. I think they feel like they have the leverage to do it. The wild card is that they are dealing with a corrupt gangster insider-trading businessman

masquerading as a head of state who is using the White House as sort of his personal business platform to enrich his cronies and family members.

So, Jeremy, last question for you. If you had to say, if you had to put your money on one side or the other, do you think the Iranian delegation shows up in Islamabad this week?

I think there is going to be another round of talks. I think the question is going to be how senior of a delegation the Iranians will send. I say that with the caveat that we could be watching this on record while we're also watching bombs hitting Tehran and other places, because that's been the pattern for the past two years. But I think there's a high likelihood that very soon there is going to be another round

of talks. Yeah. Well, we're going to endeavor to get this segment posted as quickly as we possibly can, since things are changing literally by the minute. Jeremy Scahill, always great to have your analysis. Really, really valuable. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, Jeremy.

Thank you guys.