Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. The United States and Iran could return to the negotiating table this week. The two countries held a round of indirect talks on Friday, and both sides said that meeting was a good start.
Man, it looks like they want to make it deal very badly, as they should.
After those talks ended on Friday, President Trump spoke to reporters on Air Force One.
Last time, they decided maybe not to do it, but I think they probably feel differently. We'll see what the deal is. It it be different than last time, and we have a big armada. We have a big fleet heading in that direction.
Trump said Iran knows what the consequences would be if it doesn't reach a deal with the US, but he said for now, at least there's no rush. Iran's president described last week's negotiations as a step forward, but he also said Iran does not quote tolerate the language of force. These are bilateral talks with Oman mediating, but other countries are watching them closely. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Nett Yahoo is scheduled to meet with President Trump in Washington on Wednesday.
The issue is as we turn our focus on geopolitics and diplomacy, and what men in suits are saying or not saying, is that we lose sight of what's going on on the ground in Iran.
Bloomberg's Golnar Motivali has covered Iran for more than a decade from Tehran and from London, where she's currently based, and Gaulner says, the situation that thrust Iran into this weakened negotiating position in the first place is not letting up economic turmoil that drove Iranians to nationwide protests.
The reality is is that a large number of Iranians want to see change, and they have been desperately making that point and making that case, and risking their lives for that and giving their lives in large numbers.
Over the weekend, Iran's violent crackdown on dissidents and protesters continued, with the arrest of several prominent activists. Security forces have reportedly killed almost sixty five hundred people, according to human rights organizations. President Trump previously threatened to use the US military to support the demonstrators, but it's not clear if violence against dissidents would alone and at this point provoke a US military response.
The Islamic Republic. If you look over the past nearly fifty years that it's been running Iran, it's never been in a situation as challenging and precarious as this. So I think within that context, these talks definitely provide an off ramp to this regime to try and hold onto power for longer.
I'm David Gera, and this is the big take from Bloomberg News today. On the show, Diplomatic talks between the US and Iran are set to continue this week. What does each country hope to achieve and what's at stake if these negotiations fall apart. The United States and Iran have started talks again after a month long pause. The last round ended in June after the US struck Iranian nuclear sites. I asked Gonar what brought them back to the negotiating table.
So, right now, as far as Iran is concerned, it's in the middle of an unprecedented crisis. We had these huge protests that erupted on the twenty eighth of December and grew into something much bigger than what looked initially like a reaction to a currency crash. It became a much more broader, wider, widespread rebuke against the Islamic Republic as a system of rule and supreme lead to Iotola Ali Kromne.
Iran is still reeling from those demonstrations and from those US air strikes from back in June, and its allies in the region, including Hamas and Hesbala, have been significantly weakened. All of that means Iran is negotiating from a position of relative weakness, but that doesn't mean these talks will be easy for starters. The two countries have disagreed on the scope of the talks and even on where they should take place.
The other interesting dynamic in these talks is that they're indirect, and from what we could discern from the reports who were getting from journalists on the ground who were there, including Iranian state TV media or reporters who had a camera on the location, the whole time, they were very much, very indirect, to the point where it looked like they were taking turns to send messages to the Omani mediator and then waiting to get a response again via the
Omani mediator. So it was a bit of a relay physical back and forth between the two But the other interesting thing that happened, given so much is at stake, particularly for Iran, is that both sides sounded cautiously positive using this word good.
So do we have any indication if they planned to meet or what might be on the table if they were to meet once again?
Yeah, so they have said that they planned to meet, they haven't given a time or date. I have a feeling that may have something to do with the fact that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyah, who is likely to want to talk to the Americans, and I think all eyes at this moment in time are going to be on how Israel reacts, because we know that Netanyahu specifically is not a fan of a US Iran negotiating process in which he is not involved in, at least
if he's not involved in directly. He wants to know the direction it's going in, and he tends to not like it to go in a direction that he feels benefits the Iranian regime as it currently stands. And I think one of the concerns is if he feels that the Trump administration is going to go ahead and secure some kind of deal from Iran, that he could possibly preemptively strike Iran again, and I think that would be very concerning and definitely escalating.
Prim Minister, who scheduled to meet with President Trump on Wednesday of this week, can I ask you about the goals of each side? So, without every simplifying, it seems like Fran it would be to forestall or take military action.
Off the table.
To the US wouldn't strike Aron and maybe some sanctions relief. Does it go beyond that? Do we know concretely sort of what they want the outcome of these talks to be.
I think the only thing we can go by is what they've said so far. Officials said that Iran's priority is to protect its national self interest and to secure some sanctions relief because a lot of the domestic problems, not all of them, but a fair amount are either rooted in or at least exacerbated by the economic conditions inside the country, and so much of that comes down to sanctions relief. If they want to avert and stave
off another eruption of massive unrest. I don't think they can achieve it in the long term, but they can put it off for a bit longer or try to prevent it from happening again. Is to very quickly do something that brings an injection of foreign exchange into the country.
For the US, a clear priority is the cessation of Iran's nuclear program. Officials have also said these talks should adress Iran's missiles and Tehran support for regional militias. But I also wonder whether there's a bigger objective here, some march toward regime change. Gonnard, What is the US's goal here.
I think there are a lot of people in the Trump administration who are very clear about the fact that they want regime change, and they have wanted it for a long time. But I think there is a sense in the Golf, amongst Golf officials to an extent, that a lot of what may happen may rest on not just Netan Yaho, but what Netanyahu's supporters in Washington want to see happen to Iran, and the extent to which
they can influence Donald Trump's decision making. I mean, the crazy kind of situation we're in right now, or the unusual situation, is that I think quite clearly, countries in the region, and I'm thinking specifically about the Golf Arab States, countries that are allies of the US, like Saudi Arabia Lata, they don't want a war. They don't want anything that's going to escalate tensions, that's going to be destabilizing. They certainly don't want chaos or civil war or some extraordinary
cares catastrophic situation in Iran. It's this huge country across a very narrow channel of water to their north, and it's not good for anyone.
President Trump has said if diplomacy fails, the consequences for Iran would be quote very steep. The likelihood of another US strike on Iran and what could prevent that from happening is coming up. We've talked a lot about diplomacy, but looming in the background here is the threat of military action, and we've seen the President draw this parallel
to what happened in Venezuela. How do you think about the prospects of that military intervention, what that would mean if the US were to go that round.
I think it's possibly the worst case scenario from the point of view of a lot of other countries in the region. And I think the reason why the Gulf Arab states, particularly those are our allies of the US. It leaves them extremely vulnerable and we saw during the Twelve Day War with Israel, when the Trump administration joined that bombardment at the very end effectively kind of like
preempted a ceasefire. The Iranians retaliated by sending a barrage of missiles in the direction of the largest US military base in the region, which is in Attar. That really really did not I mean, obviously the Rataris were extremely, extremely worried and upset over that, and I can't imagine
them tolerating something similar happening again along those lines. On the other hand, we also have the Iranians saying repeatedly over the past few weeks, basically since this flotillas started to move in the direction of the of the Red Sea, that any military action by the Trump administration would basically provoke the full ruff of the Islamic Republic. They've made that very clear that we will throw whatever we have at you and your allies and your assets in the region if you strike us.
And the Supreme Leader has talked about a regional war. Isn't necessarily y yes.
And I think they are saying that because they want to change the strategic calculation on the side on behalf of the Americans and even the Israelis. I think that message also because after the Twelve Day War, I think there was generally a feeling and a sense, not just in Tehran but outside that the Israelis may attack again, and I think the Uranians were genuinely concerned about that. So I think that's also message to the Israelis.
Of those limited options, it seems to me there is still an economic one. They could block the straight or form as they could with regional partners, perhaps do some blockade in the Red Sea. From an economic advantage, how much would that do? How much could that do to the global oil market?
I mean, I think that would be very worrying, right. I think if we had anything like that. I think even any mention by a senior Iranian official saying we will block the straight of hormals if X, Y and Z happens, I'm not sure if that kind of language would immediately affect oil prices. But in the current climate, and given what you have in the background, what's going on, and how sensitive the situation is, it's more likely to drive prices up, and I think that's what Trump wants
to avoid as well. I think this is also a question that we have to keep in the back of our minds is what his priorities are going to be going into the midterm elections in the US. He probably doesn't on high oil prices. More broadly, in the country, no one wants that kind of inflationy pressure at that time, not, you know, as far as politics is concerned, and so I think that is something that he may think about for sure.
I want to end with this conversation about regime change or the potential for regime change. So you've described the widespread satisfaction that I think a lot of us have seen in recent weeks, certainly in those protests, and drawing on your experience covering the country, does it feel like in this moment that is closer than it has been the prospects of their being regime change in Iran?
From speaking to people who are in Iran, and mostly in Tehran, the biggest impression I get, or the most overriding sense I have, is one of complete hopelessness. People are really sad. People talk of feeling depressed, and again this word hopelessness, and I think that's quite concerning. I think that can be quite dangerous for a country and
for its leadership. But I do think that you know, in its current manifestation, the system of running Iran, which is a theocratic state that came in after the nineteen seventy nine Islamic Revolution, this is no longer working for
the population. More broadly, I think that's quite clear, and I think the reality is is that a large number of Iranians want to see change, and they have been desperately making that point and making that case and risking their lives for that and giving their lives in large numbers.
They want change. And that tells you that whatever happens, the unrest is going to come back at some point unless there's a credible answer and a solution to the fact that a huge number of people in Iran, a large chunk of the Uranian population, feels completely adrift from its leadership, from the people who are running their lives, unless there's a credible way to address that properly, not
just with sanctions relief here and there. That stuff is important to an extent, but it's a sticking plaster.
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gerra. To get more from the Big Take and unlimited access to all of bloomberg dot com. Subscribe today at bloomberg dot com Slash podcast offer. If you like this episode, make sure to subscribe and review The Big Take Wherever you listen to podcasts. It helps people find the show. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow