Consider This from NPR - Trump says the Iran ceasefire is ‘over.’ Is diplomacy still a viable path forward?

Episode Date: July 9, 2026

What a difference three weeks makes.It’s been about that long since the US and Iran agreed on a framework to end their war, but this week that changed.President Trump said on Wednesday that the ceasefire is 'over' - and both sides have expressed deep mistrust in one another. Is diplomacy still possible?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Kathryn Fink and Tyler Bartlam.It was edited by Patrick Jarenwattananon and Tinbete Ermyas.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

It's consider this where every day we go deep on one big news story. Today, President Trump's about face on negotiations with Iran. What a difference three weeks makes. It has been about that long since the U.S. and Iran agreed on a framework to end the war. The hope was to de-escalate the fighting, work toward peace, and reopen the strait of Hormuz, the waterway that is critical to the global energy trade. But this week, the plan began to unravel. The U.S. says it's launching strikes on Iran after it says,

Iran attacked commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command says in a statement that, quote, Iran's aggression was unwarranted, dangerous, and a clear violation of the ceasefire. While meeting NATO leaders on Wednesday, President Trump discussed the ceasefire. I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them, but they're scum. You know what scum is? They're scum. They're sick people.

Consider this. Only days ago, it seemed like the U.S. and Iran were working toward ending the conflict. But overnight, that changed. and now both sides have expressed deep mistrust of each other. Is diplomacy still possible? From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow. It's Consider This from NPR. Just weeks ago, it appeared the U.S. and Iran were on a path toward peace,

agreeing to a ceasefire and to work on a deal to end the war. But that all changed this week. Now President Trump says the ceasefire is over, calling Iranian leadership scum. To talk through the latest and what might happen next, we have called up Ambassador Nicholas Burns. He was the U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush and led negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. Welcome. Thanks so much, Scott.

Let's just start with this. What has your reaction been to the last two days of events? I think it's clear that Iran does not want to honor the ceasefire. The rulers in Tehran clearly believe they have a stronger will than the United States, that they can outlast us. That can actually get a better deal in the straight-of-form moves where they're the total. goalkeeper, where they can exact tolls of all commercial shipping. Imagine what kind of power that would give them. I think that's where they're heading, and that's why you've seen the administration push back with these airstrikes over the last couple of days, because our American objective has to be, and the Trump administration's been clear about this, the strait has to be open to

commercial shipping. It's a vital international waterway, and we can't abide Iran becoming a tollkeeper, or having this coercive impact over commercial shipping. Do you think that's true? Do you think that despite the fact it's Iran being bombed, it's Iranians being killed, that Iran has more tolerance to wait this out and let this keep going? Unfortunately, the nature of this regime in Tehran is, I don't think they've ever demonstrated

that they have a clear interest in the welfare of their own people, but they clearly have an interest in the survival of their regime and the empowerment of that regime. It's an extraordinary situation, Scott, that the Iranians took extraordinary blow to the military infrastructure and civilian infrastructure in the country, and yet they suffered through it. They didn't flinch. We're dealing with an exceedingly difficult and often very untrustworthy government in Tehran, and it appears to be a government that's divided.

There seems to be one faction that does want a ceasefire of the United States, but the stronger faction is defiant. They think that they're stronger than we are, stronger of will, and so they're testing us. Given all of that, what do you think the best card the U.S. has to play is? Is it air strikes like we've seen the last few days? Is it sanctions? We saw a new round of sanctions on Iranian oil sales this past week. What do you think works here right now? I don't think there are any good options. I think the more likely option available to the president and the administration is do everything we have to do through U.S. naval power to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, use American military power selectively, as you've seen the administration do over the last couple of days.

When Iran violates a ceasefire by attacking shipping in the strait, the U.S. has had these surgical strikes, but quite substantial strikes, on Iran's military infrastructure. I think it's important to put economic pressure on what the regime really cares about. They need revenue. And if we can limit that, that might be economic pressure. So I think that's where the administration will likely go. I don't think the Congress or the American people would support a return to full-scale warfare.

I'm curious, given everything you've said, do you personally think that this war was a misfire, a mistake by the U.S. and Israel? I think going back to assess the war, it was a major strategic mistake. Iran is in some ways stronger today than it was before. So the war was ill-advised, but there'll be time for lots of questions to be asked about why the war took place on February 28th. I want to shift gears here. You, of course, were NATO ambassador at one point. What did you make of what happened in Turkey this week? You know, on one hand, President Trump, pretty bombastic, pretty critical of allies throughout the public appearances at the meeting. It's the very end when he comes out and just talks about how warm. and cooperative, everybody was behind closed doors. I was covering that and watching it, and I wasn't quite sure what to make. I'm wondering what you thought. I think there were two

major outcomes, Scott, of the NATO summit in Istanbul, one on NATO itself, on its future, and the second on Ukraine. On NATO itself, you know, here's the irony again. President Trump can justifiably take some credit for having pushed the NATO allies to spend more on defense, which they needed to do, and they hadn't done for decades. And he just won't take the win. Because despite this very good performance by the Europeans, President Trump repeated his claim that the United States should take ownership of Greenland. So I think he ought to be more positive about the progress that the Europeans made and the impact that he has had on defense spending. But, Scott, there's more positive news on Ukraine. The president

had a productive meeting with President Zelensky. President Trump said he supported Ukrainian drone strikes deep into Russian territory, and he might even support production of Patriot missile interceptors by Ukraine itself on Ukrainian territory. And I think, let's hope that President Trump will be consistent here and now turn full American support back to Ukraine and not be taken in by these blank promises from President Putin. That is Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, now professor at Harvard University, Kennedy School. Thank you so much. Thanks, Scott.

This episode was produced by Catherine Fink and Tyler Bartlam. It was edited by Patrick Jaron Wadanan and Tinbeat Armius. Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorney. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow.