STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Hardly more than a day after the declaration of the ceasefire, Iran says it's keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The White House says those reports are false. Pakistan, which is mediating negotiations, says the ceasefire does include Lebanon. Israel and the United States say Lebanon is not part of this deal. So what's going on? Is this even a ceasefire? Former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is going to tell us about that. He was the top U.S. diplomat in half a dozen countries - Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Ambassador, welcome back.
RYAN CROCKER: Thank you.
INSKEEP: Does this even look like a ceasefire to you from where you're watching, which we'll mention is in Istanbul?
CROCKER: It may be the beginning of a ceasefire. But as you say, there are a couple of important points of disagreement - Lebanon, where yesterday saw the most intense bombing of this campaign, and is the Strait of Hormuz open or not open? We'll know in a few hours.
INSKEEP: Do you feel you understand why Israel has insisted that its campaign in Lebanon cannot be part of this deal, even though it has been part of the war?
CROCKER: Because it sees this as two distinct fronts. The Israeli problem in Lebanon goes back to the 1970s. They've fought several wars there. I'm a veteran of 1982, Operation Peace for Galilee. There was the 2006 campaign that Leila Fadel covered so brilliantly. So this is an ongoing separate situation for Israel.
INSKEEP: So you feel you understand their reluctance on this point?
CROCKER: I understand their reluctance, but the whole ceasefire can unravel over it. I would hope that Israel has now reached its ground goals in Lebanon south of the Litani River. As I understand it, they said they are not interested in going further. They have hit a number of Hezbollah and, sadly, also civilian targets yesterday in Beirut. I think that there should be a lot of pressure from Washington for Israel to call it good and cease fire.
INSKEEP: And what does it say to you that Iran is still in a position to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, even though the ceasefire calls for it to open?
CROCKER: Well, that is one outcome of a conflict that we went into without full preparation or a clear intention. If anything, Iran's position is now stronger than it was on February 28. They have shown they can effectively control the Strait of Hormuz at will, and they may be doing it again. Now, there's a downside to them as well, which is why they agreed to the ceasefire in the first place. They're taking a heck of a punishment. But they've shown an ability to absorb that and keep on engaging. So my hope here, but hope is a poor policy framework, is that Iran will - if the conflict simmers down in Lebanon, that Iran will abide by its commitment to open the Straits of Hormuz. But that solves nothing, ultimately. It's the Middle East. Nothing ever ends.
INSKEEP: Is this war a strategic victory for the Iranians, simply because they long had this implied ability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, it's now explicit, and they're monetizing it?
CROCKER: Yeah. That - again, nothing is over here. Even if the ceasefire does hold, we'll have to see what the next stages are. They may have threats to their internal stability when all this simmers down. We don't know. But certainly at a tactical level or operationally, Iran has - the regime has survived, and it has shown an ability to control the Straits of Hormuz against the most formidable air campaign that we've seen in modern times. So that clearly constitutes a victory for them.
INSKEEP: Assuming that the ceasefire takes hold in some form, there are plans for peace talks because this is a temporary ceasefire. Vice President JD Vance is said to be the leader of those negotiations. Is there a realistic basis for the United States and Iran to make a more durable peace?
CROCKER: Not that I can see, quite frankly. Not at this point. President Trump has called the Iranian 10-point proposal a good basis for negotiations. Well, all 10 of those points should be utterly unacceptable to the United States. And Iran similarly has labeled President Trump's 15 points equally unacceptable. So I don't see where this even starts.
INSKEEP: What are a couple of the Iranian 10 points that you think are unacceptable to the United States?
CROCKER: That we commit to a permanent cessation of hostilities, that we will not - Israel will not resume them under any circumstances, that we will pay war reparations, that we will withdraw all of our military from the Middle East - are just a few of the highlights.
INSKEEP: OK. So do you think those are things that - in addition to being unacceptable to the United States, are they things that this administration simply is not going to sign on to in the end, do you think?
CROCKER: I'd be appalled if they did sign on to it, frankly. That would be giving Iran a total strategic victory, not just in this particular campaign but also in the region. And it would just devastate our Gulf allies who were already pretty shaky, not knowing where we're going with this campaign and not knowing how it's going to end for them.
INSKEEP: Ambassador, what does this war tell you about NATO? NATO allies felt they did not have a legal obligation to come to the aid of the United States in a war the United States started. President Trump was upset that most of them did not, and some of them actively turned down opportunities to help. What does this say about the alliance?
CROCKER: This is a moment of great jeopardy for the alliance, clearly. I understand the unhappiness on the part of our NATO allies of not being consulted in advance of hostilities and then being called on to step up for a - kind of an uncertain role once they were underway. But all of that said, I think this was an opportunity for particularly our European partners to affirm the value of the alliance - to say, we'll work with you on this. And instead, I - they're - again, I can understand their pique. But their refusal to cooperate, I think, is simply strengthening the feeling already quite visible in this administration that NATO is not worth having, and that is very unfortunate.
INSKEEP: Is NATO worth having?
CROCKER: Absolutely. It is what it's always been since its foundation. It's a bulwark against Soviet or Russian expansion in Europe. It's clear that Russia intends that expansion, and we need NATO. NATO needs us. So I hope we can somehow patch this together. The secretary-general, of course, was just in Washington. Let's hope that leads to some kind of modus vivendi.
INSKEEP: Ryan Crocker is a former U.S. ambassador to multiple countries that have been involved in the U.S. war with Iran. Ambassador, thanks so much.
CROCKER: Thank you, Steve.
(SOUNDBITE OF JON HOPKINS' "LOST IN THOUGHT") 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.
