特朗普称伊朗将同意接受重大武器检查

If we could just, uh, reflect on the most recent, uh, development. It is a true social post from the president who echoed JD Vance in saying Iran will agree to have major weapons inspections in order to ensure nuclear honesty. Sounds familiar. Sounds like 2015, does it not? It does. Congratulations. You're back to the JCPoA. Uh, and I think this is we have to take this in very measured steps. First and foremost, it would be great to get the IAEA back into Iran to see exactly what the state of play is.

But I think we have to be extremely cautious. The Iranian regime is not going to allow the transparency that we're going to desire, even when the IAEA was allowed in. We know that they were, you know, hiding, uh, there enriched uranium in some of their, uh, nuclear facilities. So I think we have to be cautious. This is a good step. Let's get in there. Uh, but this is not going to be what we insist on a really robust, transparent, uh, regime to understand what they've been doing.

Well, talk to us about the difference between being on the ground and being able to watch from space. The president likes to talk about the cameras. We have cameras, the satellites he's talking about, uh, that are so powerful. You can count the dimples on a golf ball, is what we are told. Why do we need people on the ground to find these things? Because, Joe, a lot of, uh, what Iran did was underground. The storage of their missiles, their drones, their nuclear centrifuges, and that's it.

Recall, the president always talks about nuclear dust and that, you know, the 12 day war last year was to those bunker busters to to crush and annihilate. We don't know, uh, what has been destroyed or entombed. Uh, and so you really do need the physicality of inspectors going in, and it could be the dirt removal. It's going to be extremely dangerous, extremely intrusive. And that's what, you know, uh, I caution that allowing inspectors into a country right now where the regime is cracking down on everybody.

It's a dangerous position to be in. Well, and on your point on dirt removal, the president has suggested a number of times that it's only the U.S. and China that have the capability and equipment required to actually go in and get the quote unquote, nuclear dust. So we can't even guarantee that the IAEA is going to be able to easily, uh, get sight on that. Absolutely. And you're hearing through the initial phases of some of the negotiations before they made it to Switzerland about doing this, you know, in situ, in presence.

They don't know what is there. And we honestly don't know if some of the who was not removed from those locations. I mean, with full respect, the satellites are exceptional. Yeah, we can see a lot, but it's not perfect not being there. You need to be there and be there persistently. I think that's the most important part. Talk to us about the importance of this deconfliction line, or Deconfliction cell, as it's being referred to, to avoid incidents and miscommunication to keep the strait open.

We have successfully used, uh, similar technology with the Soviets. Now, again with Russia. Is this maybe the best thing to come out of this session. Well, I think the best thing to come out of the session was actually they're starting to break down structurally, these working groups to get experts working in these different things. At this point, we need to get this out of a vice presidential level, okay. Negotiation is one image of Vice President Vance on his laptop like he was, you know, doing this himself.

I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Uh, let's put the experts on these very specific technical issues. I mean, we're all trying to figure out what in-situ removal looks like. You need those experts in there. But this deconfliction I mean, Joe, you're right. I mean, we always want adversaries to have communication lines. So if something happens, we don't quickly escalate or misinterpret something always important. But I find it so difficult, those original sort of hotlines were being used quietly, privately.

We have megaphone hotlines in the form of social media, and that's what got us in this crossfire over the weekend. And that's the discipline that everybody needs to show. We have incredible amounts of work to do in 60 days. You need to get down to work. Get this as as detailed as possible. But meanwhile, Iran's been paid. To open up the strait. To put pressure on Lebanon. We're really not getting to the nuclear part.

So they're being rewarded without really touching the nuclear part, other than letting IAEA inspectors. And that's what should have been happening, you know, for years. Well, it's important that you, uh, freeze it that way, Heather, because we've been told repeatedly by defenders of what the president is trying to do with this interim deal, uh, including Republican senators on the Hill, that this is a pay for performance plan, that Iran doesn't get anything unless they take a specific action.

But you're suggesting that while the performance is still lacking, the payments have already begun? Absolutely. I mean, Treasury just said that let the they're going to get revenue from the sanctions. That's why the strait will remain open. We need the energy prices to continue to be low. They need to get, uh, the relief and the financial relief. And of course, the Gulf countries also need to get those exports. Know we are paying for, uh, Maintaining an energy price that can be, you know, reflective here politically, but we're paying them.

And the more Iran places pressure on the strait or on Lebanon, which corners Israel in such an untenable position, they're controlling the narrative right now. This is there, and it goes on the street and Lebanon. I feel like the second part of the negotiation gets to what we need, focused on the nuclear. But again, nothing on proxies, nothing on ballistic missiles. We need to get that back into the negotiation channel.

Do we need to keep this full military force in place for at least the next 60 days to to maintain leverage? Joe, you're absolutely right. And this is the other sort of question we're not I mean, the cost of this pretty significant military presence is going to have to stay. I think they have to stay in the next 60 days to ensure some compliance kind of signal. With that said, if we if we sent a carrier strike group somewhere else home or somewhere else in the world, it would signal to the Iranians this is over and they can continue to leverage their proxy networks, put pressure on the region.

Uh, the problem is we cannot sustain this posture. We don't know the exact figure that the Pentagon is spending per day on this, but we do know the budgets are tough. Trainings are being rescheduled. I mean, this has been an unfunded and budgeted military operation. And, you know, this is where the reckoning will come in to the costs of this four month conflict, the military costs, the economic costs. And sometimes when you alleviate the pressure, those cost really, uh, come to being.

And a lot of folks are going to have to decide, was this worth it? I think they're going to question mark. Did we really get the results we needed? Well, and there's also opportunity costs are including where the U.S. is directing its attention. It is the wrong in the Middle East that have taken up a lot of oxygen versus, say, Ukraine in the ongoing war with Russia. The president did suggest at the G7 last week that he wants to shift his focus to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.

And I wonder, Heather, in our final minute, if you think that may spell, uh, a better, a better meeting this time around for the NATO secretary general Margaret, as he comes to meet with Trump on Wednesday. Yeah. All eyes right now. I mean, the president's anger is against our our European NATO allies. This this incredible spat between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia meloni and the president. Uh, yeah. Yeah yeah yeah, yeah, I, I, you know, this is.

Where are you attacking our

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。