Tangle - The U.S.–Iran nuclear talks.

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

On Saturday, U.S. and Iranian officials initiated discussions in Oman over Iran’s nuclear program. The majority of the talks were indirect and mediated by Oman, with each delegation in separate rooms and exchanging messages through Oman's foreign minister. However, at the end of the roughly two-and-a-half-hour session, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi reportedly spoke directly for 45 minutes (Iran claimed the exchange was shorter). A second round of discussions is expected to take place this Saturday, though the location is still being determined. Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What should the United States prioritize in a deal with Iran? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer, Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. Today is Tuesday, April 15th, and we are covering the Trump administration's negotiations with Iran, which have opened up in the last week or so. And there's a lot here, tons of talk about what's going on, some fears about potential war coming, and some enthusiasm about a potential deal of the century coming.

So I don't know, there's a lot to wrap your head around. Before we jump in, I wanna give you a quick heads up that as part of a spring deal right now, we're offering 20% off our newsletter and podcast bundles. That is a subscription bundle that gets you ad free podcasts. So if you just listened to the beginning of the show and you had to skip through a bunch of ads and you don't like doing that, one way to solve that problem is to become a podcast and newsletter members to get one of these bundles.

There is a link to the deal that is in our episode description. You can also find it by going to our newsletter. If you're a subscriber there, it's at the top of the newsletter. And if you're somebody who just wants to navigate to it online, you can go to www.readtangle.com forward slash spring special bundle

with little dashes in between. So spring dash special dash bundle. Read tangle dot com forward slash spring dash special dash bundle for the next 48 hours. Yeah, I think 48 hours. Next 48 hours we're gonna be rocking with this deal to get 20% off the newsletter podcast bundle. Again, that gets you ad free podcasts. It also unlocks members only podcasts like interviews and series that we do, all that

good stuff. So be sure to check it out. All right. With that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main story and I'll be back for my take. Thanks Isaac and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, during a visit to the White House, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said he

would not release the man mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador by the Trump administration, claiming he did not have the power to return him to the United States. 2. The Trump administration froze $2.26 billion in federal grants and contracts for Harvard University after the school said it would not comply with the administration's demands to change its governance structure over campus anti-Semitism concerns. 3. in structure over campus anti-Semitism concerns. Number three, immigration officials detained Mohsen Madawi, a Columbia student and legal

U.S. resident, as he arrived for a citizenship interview in Vermont. The government appears to be seeking Madawi's removal from the U.S. on the grounds that his presence is a national security threat. Number four, the Trump administration has reportedly proposed a near-50% cut to the State Department's budget, primarily reducing funding for humanitarian assistance, global health, and international organizations, according to an internal memo circulated last week. The Justice Department announced charges against a man who allegedly carried out arson attacks on the New Mexico Republican Party's headquarters and a New Mexico Tesla dealership. The US and Iran are heading to the negotiating table in Oman, and the message from the U.S. president for Tehran

could not be blunter. Strike a nuclear deal or face military force, quote, like never before. With years of mistrust between the two sides, the next few days could result in a breakthrough or in a dangerous showdown. On Saturday, U.S. and Iranian officials initiated discussions in Oman over Iran's nuclear program.

The majority of the talks were indirect and mediated by Oman, with each delegation in separate rooms and exchanging messages through Oman's foreign minister. However, at the end of the roughly two and a half hour session, U.S. Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Sayed Abbas Arakchi reportedly spoke directly for 45 minutes. Iran claimed the exchange was shorter. A second round of discussions is expected to take place this Saturday, though the location is still being determined.

For context, in 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, a 2015 agreement between Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States to restrict Iran's nuclear development in return for relaxed sanctions. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has continued to enrich its uranium stockpile to near weapons-grade levels. In March, the nuclear watchdog reported that Iran has enriched roughly 275 kilograms of uranium, up to 60% purity. Uranium is weapons-grade when enriched to

90%. Iran claims that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes. The Biden administration sought to reinstate the JCPOA, but was unable to reach a deal, and President Trump has promised to strike a new deal while simultaneously implementing a maximum-pressure campaign sanctioning Iranian oil exports. The Trump administration called the Oman discussions very positive and constructive, adding that special envoy Witkoff's direct communication today was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome.

Separately, Iran Foreign Minister Arakchi told Iranian state television, I think we are close to a basis for negotiations, and if we can conclude this basis next week, we'll have gone a long way and will be able to start real discussions based on that. An Omani source also reported, the current focus of the talks will be deescalating regional tensions, prisoner exchanges, and limited agreements to ease sanctions against Iran in exchange for controlling Iran's nuclear program. An Iranian spokesman denied this account but did not specify what was false.

Ahead of the talks, President Trump said that Iran is going to be in great danger if discussions did not go well. However, Trump has also expressed a desire to reach a diplomatic solution, sending a letter through the United Arab Emirates to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei outlining his vision for a deal. U.S. and Iranian officials struck an optimistic tone heading into next week's talks, but key issues remain for both sides.

Iran is reportedly concerned that Trump could pull out of the deal again, while U.S. officials raise doubts about Iran's plan for its nuclear program. Today, we'll explore views from the left, right, and abroad on the initial talks, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. Alright, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is mixed on the talks, with some suggesting the administration should keep military action on the table. Others say Trump's haphazard posture on the talks threatens their success.

For the Atlantic Council, Daniel B. Shapiro wrote, the Iran nuclear talks are Trump's decisive moment on military strikes. If and when talks get serious, the two sides will face major gaps. Trump is seeking a tougher deal than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. His aims include fully dismantling Tehran's nuclear program, Shapiro said. Based on all Iranian behavior in previous rounds of negotiations, there is no reason to believe Tehran would agree to these terms. Iran has for decades worked to assemble an industrial nuclear program, which the regime

believes to be key to its survival. has for decades worked to assemble an industrial nuclear program, which the regime believes to be key to its survival. The notion that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at age 85 and nearing the end of his rule would agree to give up all this is implausible. Given these challenges, three options are likely to emerge from the negotiations. One, a limited deal that does not fundamentally dismantle Iran's program but buys some time. 2. No deal, the deadline approaching, and the imposition of snapback sanctions leading to crisis. And 3. A military strike against the nuclear program, Shapiro wrote.

A successful military operation might buy considerably more time than one thinks. Even so, the United States should only undertake such an operation if it is prepared to potentially repeat it. Planners must realistically scope the force posture required in the Middle East to keep that option available. In Bloomberg, Andreas Kluth asked, why should Iran believe anything the U.S. threatens or promises? The problem, as hostage negotiators, relationship therapists, and others can confirm, is that

talking doesn't always solve a problem and can even make it worse, depending on the intentions, interests, and mental states of the interlocutors. The Iranians, like the Russians, are notoriously shifty negotiators, but so are the Americans, now that they're led by Trump, Klooth said. The president has been contradicting himself and garbling his signals to an extent that now hampers negotiations with any rational actors Whether they're in Tehran, Beijing, Moscow or Pyongyang. Trump is once again exerting maximum pressure while simultaneously offering talks and threatening war and neither of those convincingly. talks and threatening war and neither of those convincingly. An approach with better odds of success, if it came across as credible, might be to ask

Iran to not ditch nuclear technology altogether, but to only forswear its weaponization and to accept rigorous international verification, Klueth wrote. Trump can't be a credible negotiator while simultaneously impersonating a madman. Let's keep assuming he's impersonating. He can't be a peacemaker if he also keeps threatening to bomb regimes out of existence. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports the latest developments, arguing Trump is well-positioned to bring stability to the Middle East.

Some say Trump should take advantage of Iran's weak position to reach a favorable deal. In the New York Post, Julian Epstein suggested the Trump-Iran talks could herald the biggest Mideast Reformation of our lifetime. Previous administrations would have never dreamed of direct talks with a pariah state like Iran so early in a new administration. They would have favored a slower technocratic process of preliminary proposals, proffers, and above all else, insulating the principles from any blame in the event the talks failed," Epstein wrote.

Trump's message to Iran is simple. Abandon your nuclear program or else. To most observers, this appears to be the use of hard power or the threat of it by someone with a bigger gun. But what most of the commentariat is missing is the three-dimensional strategy Trump seems to be employing on the global chessboard. The story of this chess game starts, interestingly enough, with the armistice negotiations in Ukraine.

Right now, Trump is positioned to secure a peace agreement that ensures a reshaped Ukraine's sovereignty and security. If Trump pulls this off, it will allow the U.S. and the West to lift oil sanctions on Russia and gradually reintegrate Russia into the Western economy, Epstein said. But there is a critical caveat. In exchange, Russia detaches itself from Iran, scholar and commentator Haviv Redigar says of this newly emerging strategy. It makes abundant sense. Russia will get much more economically from a détente with the West than a continued tenuous military alliance with a dead-man-walking Iranian regime that Iran relied on primarily

for its imperialist aims in Syria and Iraq. In The Washington Examiner, Peter Laffin wrote, Trump flexes on a hobbled Iran. For Trump, the goal is straightforward. He must prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and he must restrict Iran from the capability to produce nuclear materials, which includes serious protocols for verification. Iran's current weakness may also enable the U.S. to address Tehran's malign activities in other areas, including its cyber-attack capabilities and arms sales, Laughin said.

Of course, the Iranians may refuse, despite the threat of military strikes. They could suddenly announce that they have achieved nuclear capabilities, which would invite targeted airstrikes from the U.S. and Israel. Trump has assured the Iranians that the situation will be resolved one way or another. At home, either a favorable deal or successful strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a feather in the cap for an administration suddenly desperate for some good news, Laughin wrote. To be certain, it would be best to avoid a direct military conflict.

But Trump is wise to exert pressure by every available means now. Opportunities such as this are rare, and we must capitalize on them while we can. America is fortunate to have leaders in charge who seem to understand this. Alright, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to what some writers abroad are saying. Iranian writers say that they are open to a deal but insist the U.S. must be a good faith negotiator. Other writers abroad say Trump has a rare opportunity to secure lasting peace.

In the Washington Post, Sayed Abbas Aragchi, Iran's minister of foreign affairs, said, The ball is in America's court. In recent weeks, messages and letters have been exchanged between Iran and the United States. Contrary to some interpretations, these communications, at least from our side, have been neither symbolic nor ceremonial. We view them as representing a genuine attempt to clarify positions and open a window toward diplomacy," Aragji wrote.

Pursuing indirect negotiations is not a tactic or a reflection of ideology, but a strategic choice rooted in experience. We face a significant wall of mistrust and harbor serious doubts about the sincerity of intentions, made worse by U.S. insistence on resuming the maximum-pressure policy prior to any diplomatic interaction. To move forward today, we first need to agree that there can be no military option, let alone a military solution. President Trump clearly recognizes this reality in urging a ceasefire as the first course of action to end the Ukraine conflict about she said We believe that if there is a true will there is always a way forward as

Recent history has shown diplomatic engagement worked in the past and can still work We are willing to clarify our peaceful intent and take any necessary measures to allay any possible concern For its part the United States can show that it is serious about diplomacy peaceful intent and take any necessary measures to allay any possible concern. For its part, the United States can show that it is serious about diplomacy by showing that it will stick to any deal it makes. In responsible statecraft, Treat-to-Parsi wrote, with Iran talks, Trump could achieve a triple win. Donald Trump's first diplomatic encounter in Tehran could not have gone any better.

Both sides described the talks held in Oman as positive and constructive. But the true sign of their success was that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Sadakchi, agreed to speak directly to Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, Parsi said. Trump now has the opportunity to secure a better deal by going for a triple win. Trump has repeatedly declared his only red line is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but it has remained unclear whether Trump would seek to achieve that through the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program has advanced dramatically over the course of the past few years, and

getting it back to where it was in 2015 will be a daunting task. But Trump is better positioned to reverse these gains precisely because he is willing to offer primary sanctions relief to Tehran," Parsi wrote. If Trump sticks to a strategy that prioritizes the nuclear issue rather than Iran's ballistic missiles or relations with groups such as Hezbollah or the Houthis that pursues a verification-based deal rather than Libya-style dismantlement, and uses primary sanctions relief to push back Iran's nuclear program while opening up its economy to American companies, then he will score a triple win for America. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.

All right, that is it for the left and the right and some folks abroad are saying, which brings us to my take. Now this is interesting. For most of the last decade, conservatives have been largely critical of direct negotiations with Iran. President Trump pulled the US out of the Obama era JCPOA in 2018, calling it one of the worst and most one sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Conservatives were almost unanimous in their support for that decision and now, seven years later, some of Trump's former advisors worry he's about to go home with a deal similar to JCPOA. I doubt that will happen, primarily because this moment is much different than 2015.

Today, Iran is a seriously degraded regime with weaker regional and domestic positions. The wars in Gaza and Lebanon have inflicted heavy damage on Hamas and Hezbollah, two of its most important proxy groups. The Houthis, whom Iran has supplied with weapons but is less of a direct Iranian proxy, have been the most recent target of the US military. Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, propped up by Iran, has fallen. Iran's two strikes on Israel, which did limited damage, proved Israeli's defenses are more than capable. And then Israel responded with heavy strikes on Iran's air defense network

that are believed to have crippled it. At the same time, the Iranian people are enduring a struggling economy and continue to openly defy and protest the regime. And all of this is happening while the U.S. has moved two major carriers, 18 warships and 30 percent of our stealth bomber fleet into the region. This is to say that Iran is more vulnerable now than they were 10 years ago, to the point that the regime credibly believes it faces an existential threat. Their fighting force is depleting. Their economy is straining.

The vice is tightening. At the same time, critics of deals like JCPOA believe that the last few years have vindicated their fears. Their common refrain was that the negotiated terms would only keep a nuclear weapon at arms length, while allowing Iran to keep its coffers flush and continue to sow chaos in the region. The October 7 attacks in Israel, Hezbollah's military preparedness, and the Houthis attacks are all manifestations of those fears. However, the extent that deals like JCPOA impact Iran's operational funding is

contentious, especially because funding those groups is relatively inexpensive. For instance, Hezbollah receives an estimated seven hundred million dollars annually from Iran, while Iran's budget is estimated to be about sixty five billion dollars, though its numbers are pretty opaque. Yes, unfreezing an additional $50-100 billion in sanctioned assets would obviously make funding Hezbollah a whole lot easier, but it only represents about 1% of Iran's budget. In the past, I've been supportive but skeptical of Iranian nuclear deals. Iran has been weeks away from a bomb for most of my lifetime and I can hardly stop myself from chuckling

when I hear it again now in 2025. Of course, keeping a regime that regularly promises the destruction of America and Israel from getting a nuclear bomb makes sense, but it can be hard to take the threat seriously after hearing it so regularly. I was supportive but skeptical of past deals because agreements like JCPOA were effective,

though imperfect. JCPOA verifiably constrained Iran's nuclear activities through regular intrusive inspections from the IAEA. That was the entire point of the deal, which Trump scuttled, and now we're back in fear-mongering mode about how close Iran is to a bomb. Yet, the last few years do raise serious questions about the trade-off. The crude bottom line is that a new deal could mean no chance of a nuclear bomb but lots

of money in the bank for Iran, while no deal means proximity to a nuclear bomb but crippling sanctions and depleted finances. Is it better to allow Iran to have some proximity to a nuclear bomb, which we may be able to stop militarily in exchange for the risk of a stronger Hezbollah, Hamas, or Houthis? Also, without a deal in place for the last six years, Iran still hasn't developed a bomb that's always been weeks away from having. So do we really need a deal? Could this military intelligence about Iran's forthcoming nuclear arsenal really just be ginned up fervor to saber-rattle us

into a war? These are genuine questions Americans and US negotiators need to be asking, and they're the kinds of trade-offs I feel conflicted about. All of this, opening talks with Iran, trying to initiate a new deal, pursuing new horizons for our relationship, it's laudable.

Trump is the ultimate foreign policy reset, even in classic Trump fashion, when he's both the person who put the last deal in the shredder and the one trying to tape it back together. I mean, I feel like we just did this with tariffs last week, but alas. From the Western U.S. perspective, the regional situation is undeniably fragile at this moment. We do have maximum leverage, but we also have very, very little room for error. There is real anxiety in both countries about a potential war and about how much Iran should even trust us as a partner. After all, Trump just tore up the last deal

they entered, so they'd be wise to demand any new deal was legally binding and not easily undone by a future administration. That skepticism will now meet Trump's posturing, which has explicitly been that Iran's options are a deal or great danger. And this time that threat doesn't seem empty. Conservative pundits well sourced in the administration, including Tucker Carlson, seem deeply alarmed that we are barreling toward an all out war with Iran.

Trump, of course, would face serious domestic challenges going that route. He's promised over and over some kind of reduced American presence in the Middle East, but it's hard not to notice him drawing red lines about a strike that we'll have trouble ignoring in a few weeks. I find some solace in seeing former adversaries

like John Kerry and Thomas Kaplan come together to tout the unique opportunity the moment presents for us to reach a historic deal. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little nervous. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. That is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Brett in Wisconsin. Brett said, did the spike in options buying occur before or after Trump posted to Truth

Social? This is important context. I haven't seen anyone explicitly confirm. All right. So to answer your question directly, options trading spiked after President Trump posted on Truth Social that this is a great time to buy, but before the announcement that he was pausing all reciprocal tariffs.

We wrote about this on the day we covered the pause, but the long and short of it is that somebody profited big time from a call option, basically a bet that a certain funder stock will go up in a period of time on Invesco QQQ, which is an index fund that tracks tech companies. And the call option was placed minutes before the announcement that tariffs were being paused was made.

Other traders also bought call options on QQQ and SPY and ETF tracking the general market minutes before the announcement. To me, this means one of three things. One, maybe a group of people responded to Trump's great time to buy message as a cue that changes were coming, or trusted him that the market was at a low

and went all in on a risky bet. Two, maybe a group of people had a hunch that the tariffs wouldn't last and they just got very, very lucky. Or three, maybe a group of people made an investment decision based on information they knew about Trump's announcement before it was made. Given the profits that some individuals gained against the backdrop that the S&P 500, which represents about 75% of the US stock

market, has lost 5% of its value in the past two weeks, it should at the very least warrant an investigation to see which of the three scenarios is true. I think the call options were that irregular and that big. That said, it is still very possible that traders acted on some kind of advance information, even fraudulently, without it being a conspiracy. We don't have any hard evidence of a conspiracy to commit insider trading, but what we do know should be more than enough to justify an investigation. All right, that is it for your questions answered.

I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. Don't forget about that 20% off deal to Bundle. You can get more info in the episode description or readtangle.com forward slash spring dash special dash bundle. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the Radar story for today, folks. On Monday, Metta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in the Federal Trade Commission's first antitrust

trial under the Trump administration. The FTC alleges that Metta created an illegal social media monopoly by acquiring the social media apps Instagram and WhatsApp when both were in their early stages, and the agency may seek to remove the companies from Metta's control. Metta argues that it has not achieved a monopoly in the social media space and faces competition from platforms like TikTok, LinkedIn, and YouTube. While a loss would bring about significant consequences for Metta, legal experts say

the FTC has a tall task to prove its case. One of the most difficult things for antitrust laws to deal with is when industry leaders purchase small potential competitors, said Jean Kimmelman, a senior official in the Obama administration's Department of Justice. Metta bought many things that either didn't pan out or were integrated. How are Instagram and WhatsApp different? The New York Times has this story

and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The number of official talks between the United States and Iran during the first Trump administration was zero. Iran's GDP growth in 2016, the year after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was adopted, was plus 12.3 percent, according to the Central Bank of Iran. Iran's GDP growth in 2018, the year President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA, was

minus 4.8 percent. The average number of barrels per day of crude oil produced by Iran at the start of 2018 before Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA was 3.8 million. The average number of barrels per day of crude oil produced by Iran in October 2019 was 2.1 million. The estimated increase in kilograms of Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% between Q4 2024 and Q1 2025 is plus 93, according to a March report from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The estimated amount in kilograms of Iran's overall stockpile of enriched uranium as of October 26, 2024, is 6,604. And the approximate amount in kilograms of uranium already enriched to 60% purity necessary to produce one atomic weapon, possible at 90% purity, is 42, according to the IAEA. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. While dining out in Pittsburgh with her young son, Tammy Kanzier noticed an older waitress struggling to move around the restaurant. Kanzier realized that the waitress, Betty, suffered from chronic back pain but couldn't

afford to retire. I'm 81, but I can still outdo all these whippersnappers, Betty said. Kanzier was inspired by Betty's positivity and turned to TikTok to share her story. Her post sparked a huge community response, raising over $300,000 in donations for the waitress. She is a sweet, deserving woman, Kanzir said. Today has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode.

As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. And a reminder that today is a special day because for the next 48 hours, we're offering 20% off the first year of either our newsletter subscription or our bundled subscription, which gets you the absolute best discount that we offer. We've provided links in today's episode description, so I hope you go ahead and take advantage of this special opportunity.

We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lowe. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will K. Back and associate editors Hunter Tasperson, Audrey Morehead, Bailey Saul, Lindsay Knuth, and

Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.