Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
President Trump intensified his threats on Iran over the weekend in an expletive ridden truth social post, threatening to bomb around civilian infrastructure, and on Monday, Trump doubled down.
We're giving them till tomorrow eight o'clock Eastern time, and after that they're gonna have no bridges, They're gonna have no power plants.
Eight pm Eastern Time on Tuesday is the latest deadline Trump has given Iran to reopen the Straight of Hormus to shipping traffic in an effort to ease oil price shocks rippling around the globe.
They asked for an extension of seven days, right, I said, Steve, give them ten days. Ten days is up actually today, So I gave him a leven. I guess indirectly, I thought it was inappropriate.
The day after Easter, as the clock ticks on that ultimatum, Trump deflected questions about the potential of a ceasefire.
I can't talk about ceasefire, but I can tell you that we have a active, willing participant on the other side. They would like to be able to make a deal.
This morning, Iranian state media reported that Iran had rejected a US proposal for a temporary ceasefire and that it instead wants a permanent end to the war. After weeks of mixed messages, Trump's press conference provided little new clarity on where the conflict could go from here, with a deal to open the Strait of Hormuz or more destruction.
Do I want to destroy their infrastructure now? It will take them one hundred years to rebuild right now. If we left today, it would take them twenty years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was. And the only way they're going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.
I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Trump's threats on Iran are escalating and his deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz is looming. I speak with Bloomberg White House correspondent Courtney Subramanian to unpack the state of negotiations between the US and Iran and what comes next.
This all, to me suggested that maybe the administration is not as close to an exit as the President has projected. Over the past couple weeks.
In a post over the weekend and in a press conference today, Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike civilian infrastructure, targets, bridges, power plants. Courtney, can you put into context for us just how extreme these threats are.
He specifically laid out a scenario in which the US could bomb civilian bridges, energy infrastructure and said that these bridges would be burning. It would be gone by twelve o'clock tomorrow if Roan was not willing to meet the deadline that he set and meet the ultimatum of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, And of course that raises a lot of alarm bells around the world. That would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and would be considered
a war crime. Israel in particular, I think is a big question mark over this supposed threat, especially because they have said recently that a part of their objectives was that they wanted to leave a functioning state for the
opposition to take control of. They wanted to give the Iranian people a reason to fight for the state and push back against the power structures, and so going after these civilian targets would be a misalignment with the Israeli objectives, which the US has said they are in complete coordination and an alignment with Israel.
On does this potential for US escalation open the door to a new level of response from Iran? What can you expect Iran to do if the US targets civilian infrastructure or even threatens to do so.
They have said they would retaliate. And if you look at some of the reasoning and the rationale from the US as to why they launched this military campaign, they paint Iran as the world's number one terrorists, a terrorist state that has constantly targeted the US over the last few decades. And I think that especially given their objectives, which is survival, at this point, we should expect to see some sort of retaliation, whether that is on US soil or an US military basis in the Gulf region.
One of the key leverage points in this war for Iran, and one of the key priorities for the Trump administration right now, is the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has been trying to get around to open the Strait of Hormuz, issuing a series of ultimatums to the country over the past few weeks. What message does that shifting timeline send Iran.
You know, the President has said that he thinks talks are going well in a series of interviews he's done with reporters of the last twenty four hours. The idea is to buy more time because he has escalated these threats so much. The problem is the Strait of Hormuz is such a point of contention, particularly because Iran sees that as one of their biggest leverage points in these negotiations,
in this entire war. This is something they economically are benefiting from, of course, but also it's allowing them to drag on this conflict. The US, of course, would like to see Iran give up control of that strait in order to move forward, and I think they are just at exact opposite ends of agreement on who should control the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump's press conference really brought that into relief. Trump said that the spoils quote unquote should go to the victor in Iran, which he said was the US, and that instead of Iran charging ships to transit the straight, it should be the US collecting the tolls.
I'd rather do that than let them have them run. Why shouldn't we with a winner.
How do you solve that disagreement over who should collect tolls of the straight of hormus in a day?
I don't think you can. The problem here is Trump views everything through the Venezuela model, which he again referenced today. Right, this extraction of Nicholas Maduro and then going in and working with the remaining government and definitely taking over the oil industry is not really a model that you can replicate in a country as big as Iran, in a region where this industry is so vital and critical to the countries around it and involved so many players, regional players.
But the president doesn't seem to see that, and I think it's going to take more than a day to find common ground between these two sides.
Well, let's talk about the state of negotiations right now, because Axios had reported that there were discussions about reaching a potential forty five day ceasefire between the US and Iran, But this morning, Iranian state media reported that Iran rejected a US proposal for a temporary ceasefire and that it instead wants a permanent end to the war. Where does this all leave negotiations and talks with just a day on the clock before the president's latest deadline.
White House officials have said this is one of the me any ideas on the table that the President is considering, which I think is probably true for any set of negotiations this administration has been through with regard to other conflicts. But we also have heard from Iran in different points in this conflict where they have refuted some of the messaging we've seen out of Washington. I mean, these conversations are happening, you know, behind the scenes, through text messages,
through phone calls. So I think it is hard to take either side at face value at this point until we get to this you know, deadline and see what the US is willing to do, you know, whether or not Tehran is meeting their ultimatum at this.
Point, right Iran has seen Trump pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal that was worked out between the US and Iran. This year, the US and Israel attacked Iran while negotiations with the country appeared to be ongoing. So I'm wondering, from Iran's perspective, how does that context weigh on them as these talks move forward. Why believe that this round of negotiations will be different.
The US has used this playbook before. You know, we've seen them talk about negotiation, characterize it or mischaracterize it as going well, and then you know, going into an action that the administration wants to take. Anyway, you know, from Tehran's perspective, this could all be a replay of what happened last June when the US decided to attack
Iran's nuclear facilities. There's just been an erosion of trust with the president's negotiators, Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, his son in law, which is probably why we've seen Vice President jd Vance enter the negotiations. He's also been speaking on behalf of the administration and taking a much more prominent role this time.
And Courtney, where is Israel in all this? Can any deal be meaningful for i Ran without Israel's cooperation or sign on.
That's one of the biggest questions to me. I think they're one of the biggest puzzle pieces in putting this all together. As you mentioned, any deal that the President's negotiators workout needs to be coordinated with Israel, who has, by the way, continued attacking even into this week, even into today. But he does have a very close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyaho and we did hear from
Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday that he was in contact. He had called the President to congratulate him on the search and rescue efforts of the two fighter pilots whose jet was downed in Iran. Netanya who has been very clear that he has an open and frank relationship with President Trump, and Key has talked about the military objectives for Israel. I think they have been mostly aligned with the US on guaranteeing that Iran could never receive a nuclear weapon,
that they want to cease their missile program. But again these are huge points of contention that Tehran has not come close to agreeing to. So where the status of these negotiations are at is still a question to be answered.
What about other Gulf states? What kind of guarantees would they want out of a potential ceasefire deal or a permanent end to the war, and do they have a seat at the negotiating table.
We've seen the Golf States being pushed closer to the US mostly because they don't have an option. They are probably pretty desperate for an off ramp as well, especially with the closing of the strait and some of the economic ramifications we've seen. But also, you know, even the attacks from Tehran on the region and on these countries. I think they are all pushing for some sort of last ditch effort to achieve a ceasefire in these final
hours of the president's deadline. But the question is, you know, whether they will be successful in convincing the President to find some common ground.
Much of President Trump's Monday press conference was devoted to celebrating the success of a US mission to rescue the two airmen whose jet was shot down last week in Iran.
One of the largest, most complex, most harrowing combat searches. I guess you would call it a search and rescue mission.
What is this episode? The shooting down of the jet in the first place, and the rescue mission tell us about how the US's military operations are going and Iran's military capabilities.
You know, the US sees this search and rescue effort and the successful rescue of these two pilots as an affirmation of US forces and the military campaign, and Iran sees the downing of a US jet as a success as well. It's a question of survival. And you know, as much as the President said they have obliterated their navy, their air force, Iran still has the capabilities to put up a fight, and I think that is one of
the central problems with finding an off ramp here. So it's given both sides a reason to keep going and no reason to find a way out.
It all is a reminder that Trump campaigned on getting out of forever wars. So I'm wondering how this latest chapter in the Iran War war, more than a month in, is playing with Trump's base.
Polling has told us that a lot of the President's supporters, his core based supporters, are with him, which is something we've seen throughout his first term and second. But there is a real mismatch with what the President promised coming into office, coming into politics, right, This was a man who very much said was against foreign intervention, was against
dragging the US into new conflicts. But a lot of Republicans within his party have really questioned his decisions on dragging this war out, especially as we get closer to November. A lot of previous elections have told us that most US voters lock in their opinions by early summer ahead of midterm elections. That's getting pretty close. And we still have no idea about whether the US will hold to these timelines that the President has promised, particularly because he
keeps extending them. So, you know, if gasoline prices are still increasing, if the President is talking about the war in Iran instead of talking about tackling the housing crisis or talking about his economic agenda, then I think there's going to be real questions about whether his party is going to be successful in November.
Yeah, the base seems to be loyal to Trump even through the Iran war, but the majority of Americans, according to CNN and Fox polling, does approve of this war.
Republicans are extremely anxious about this war, especially as it drags on the deadline of how long he said this would the Americans would have to endure. The economic implications of this war are fast approaching, and oil prices are not coming down. You know, we have reported that the administration is even looking into modeling if oil prices jumped to one hundred and fifty to two hundred dollars a barrel.
That does not line up with the economic message that Republicans are pushing ahead of November.
And the Trump administration has asked for one point five trillion dollars for the Department of Defense in its next budget, which would be a record amount of spending. So that just speaks to the amount of resources that the Trump administration wants to expend on this.
War, especially when they're cutting funding for domestic programs and some of the agencies like housing. Right, that is a huge issue and will be a huge issue in November.
Lastly, Courtney, I want to ask about support for this war on the international stage. Trump has asked the US's NATO allies to get involved in the Iran war. They haven't. He's threatened to withdraw from the alliance. He's criticized the alliance. Trump is scheduled to meet with NATO's Secretary General Mark Rutta later this week, and Trump often talks about who has the best cards to play. I'm wondering who holds the cards here.
I mean, ultimately the president does. I think he's proven through and through at several points when he's gone after our NATO allies and questioned their role and their commitments.
You know that they always end up coming to Washington to try and convince him of the importance of the NATO alliance and why it's critical that the US stay in this alliance, which is why I think we are seeing Ruta come to the US this week to try and again, you know, educate the President, charm him as he has in the past, and convince him that even though there is great trepidation about the size and scope of this campaign and involvement, that that does not detract
from the US ally's commitment to the US. But I think Iran has been almost a bridge too far for many of these countries who are not willing to follow the President down this path, especially as there is no clear end in sight at this point, despite these negotiations, which have dragged on frankly for weeks.
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm Sarah Holder. To get more from The Big Take and unlimited access to all of Bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com slash offer. If you liked 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.