MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
For more on these latest hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, we are going to turn now to Michael Singh. He was senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. He devised and coordinated U.S. national security policy toward the region with a focus on Iran's nuclear pursuits and regional activities. He's now managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Singh, good morning. Thanks for joining us.
MICHAEL SINGH: Morning, Michel.
MARTIN: What do both sides stand to gain from these new attacks? I just want to mention the U.S. military says it targeted ground control stations and radar sites in a proportional response. Iran has now targeted U.S. bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. What's the goal of each side?
SINGH: Well, I think that Franco had it right. I don't think either side wants to look weak. I think both sides want to project that when necessary, they're willing to use military force regardless of the negotiations. And I think that's what's happening here. But I - you know, my sense is that, fundamentally, neither side really wants to see a breakdown of a ceasefire. Neither side wants to return to full hostilities. Both want to get back to the negotiations. But, you know, counterintuitively, maybe, I think both sides see this type of exchange of fire as important to their positions at the negotiating table.
MARTIN: Forgive me if I'm asking you to predict. But do you think that this - it stops here, or do you think there's more to come here?
SINGH: Look, it's never easy to contain military action once it starts. But I think both sides will be looking to do just that - to find off-ramps, to find a way to de-escalate, having now sort of had this tit-for-tat exchange.
MARTIN: Is the term ceasefire still relevant here, though? Is there still a ceasefire?
SINGH: I think just the fact that both sides are saying it and paying lip service to it is important because what that tells us is that both the U.S. and Iran would like to see an agreement - that neither one really sort of wants to see themselves in war.
MARTIN: So President Trump has repeatedly said that Iran's military has been greatly diminished. Just a couple of days ago, he said it was totally destroyed. And yet the president said Iranians took down what he called a highly sophisticated Apache helicopter. So what's your assessment of the state of Iran's military, based on whatever access to information you have?
SINGH: Well, again, I think, Michel, here, the sort of frustrating thing is that both things are true. I think Iran's military has been significantly diminished if you're just sort of counting the number of missiles and drones and so forth that have been destroyed, and naval vessels. But it remains a big threat. Iran remains - retains, rather - the ability obviously to sort of down an Apache helicopter, obviously to menace shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, to target American military facilities across the region. And so what we're seeing is that Iran's military is resilient and that Iran has tools like missiles and drones and, frankly, its proxies in other countries that can threaten our interests.
MARTIN: I'm - I want to go back to Franco's report and the analyst who said that the president sort of is - keeps jawboning this idea that, you know, peace is at hand, a real solution, a long-term agreement is at hand. Is that helpful or not in this situation? I mean, I'm assuming he's speaking to a domestic audience, but is that helpful?
SINGH: Well, I think it's President Trump's MO. We heard something very similar in Gaza. We heard that on Ukraine initially. And I think, yes, he's trying to project confidence. He's trying to reassure markets and voters. And to some extent, it's worked. If you look, for example, at oil prices, most of us watching this think they're really not as high as you might expect. And it may well be that this also reflects an underlying reality that, you know, we're 95% of the way towards an agreement between the U.S. and Iran. But really, that remaining 5%, you know, is very thorny and very difficult.
MARTIN: OK. Well, just a fact - spirit of just clarification here. The fact is, oil prices are still about $1 a gallon higher than they were a year ago. They are not as high as they were. They've come down a little bit in recent days, but just sort of the point of clarity here. Just - we have about a minute left. If you were part of this administration's National Security Council, what advice would you be giving the administration?
SINGH: Well, you know, I think the problem for President Trump right now is that he's negotiating under serious pressure because of what you just mentioned - because of the increase in gasoline prices, the increase in other energy-related prices across the world. And you don't want to negotiate issues like the nuclear issue and the other key issues under that kind of pressure. So I would say job No. 1 is just get the Strait of Hormuz open, even if that means being willing to lift the blockade of Iran's ports in exchange. Do that sort of minimalist deal, and leave those other issues for down the road. Frankly, Iran's nuclear program is not the threat right now that it was in the past. And so there's no urgent need for an agreement on that particular set of issues. What we urgently need is relief for global markets.
MARTIN: That is Michael Singh. He's former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. Mr. Singh, thank you so much for speaking with us and sharing your expertise.
SINGH: Thank you. 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.
