history

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

MORE than three decades after London helped launch her career, Tori Amos is back in the city, headlining the Royal Albert Hall for a tenth time. 

The US singer is chatty and upbeat despite staying up until 5am, still riding the high of her gig the night before. 

With her striking red hair falling in waves and her vivid green eye make-up, Maryland-raised Tori, who has called Cornwall home since the late Nineties, looks every inch the star. 

“London was the place that gave me my big exposure explosion,” she says.

“It really did shake my life up. And here we are again. 

“London broke Silent All These Years in the autumn of 1991, and then launched [debut album] Little Earthquakes, which rippled out to the States and the rest of the world.

plug pulled

Brit band cancel gig at final hour after ‘unexpected medical situation’

singing sensations

Where the Osmonds are now: About 70s group as Alan Osmond dies at 76

“America really discovered me through London, and then the UK did, too. From there, it just kept rippling outwards.” 

On her forthcoming 18th album, In Times Of Dragons, Amos turns political dread, female resistance and personal storytelling into something unique and mythic.  

She says: “I’m very reclusive at home and I’m not very sociable there so when I’m on tour I go from this insular life, where I do a lot of reading, music and writing, and step into this much more exposed life.” 

The contrast between Amos’s secluded home life and her role as a performer feeds directly into an album shaped by both personal reflection and political unease. 

The record is a response to the current political climate in America because, as a songwriter “a lot of my work is documenting time,” she tells me. 

“That’s what I did with Little Earthquakes, which followed my time of failure after [her synth band] Y Kant Tori Read when I had to go back to play piano bars.  

“I have a history of documenting things — my miscarriage in 1998 and that journey, then my 2002 album Scarlet’s Walk which documented 9/11 when I actually wrote some of it on the tour bus.” 

The idea for In Times Of Dragons came through the muses — otherworldly entities — that Amos believes bring her music.  

She has spoken widely about these guiding forces, which she says have inspired her songwriting since childhood.

And last year she published children’s book Tori And The Muses, all about them. 

She says: “This message came to me through the muses that I needed to document America at this pivotal time in history. 

“And I had to personalise this.

“It came to me a year ago that I needed to be me in the story and be closely connected to one of these people, and what that would look like, because they are personally affecting us. 

“I had to turn the volume on that to create this narrative, whatever turning into a dragon looks like.” 

The album follows the story of Tori trapped in a world run by billionaire tech moguls and lizard dragons, who threaten democracy through corporate greed and authoritarianism. 

Amos says: “Jane Mayer writes about the genesis of this in Dark Money, which is one of the most important books people need to read if they’re asking, ‘How did we get here?’. 

“This has been going on since the Seventies.

“As Mayer documents, figures like the Koch brothers — and I use that as an umbrella term for a wider movement — helped shape it, along with super PACs [organisations that spend millions supporting political candidates] and all the rest. 

“It seems there was an understanding that progressive teaching in universities had to be excavated, cut back and penetrated by a very tight right-wing philosophy that is now upon us. 

“And I’m not just talking about Republicans and Democrats. I’m talking about tyranny versus democracy.

“If you had asked me about this even around the Scarlet’s Walk era, I was already going after it through that record, and then through [2007 album] American Doll Posse during the Bush-Cheney administration with the wars, the manipulation, all of that. 

“Then there was a period of relief, when a different, more inclusive philosophy came in, whatever your politics are. 

“For me, it’s about the philosophy.

“As a songwriter, I’ve been tracking that through my career. 

“On this record, I had to take a personal journey and look at the effects of what this very small cabal of men is doing — and there are women involved too, we can’t get confused about that. 

“There’s Cambridge Analytica, the involvements of the Mercers, Rebekah Mercer [the right-wing US heiress and political donor] and all those interconnections.” 

The album’s story sees Amos’s character flee and reunite with her daughter.

This part is played by her real-life daughter Natashya, who co-wrote tracks Veins, Strawberry Moon and Stronger Together — the latter of which she also sings backing vocals on, and is one of the most emotional songs on the record. 

“She was in DC at the time, in law school, and she graduates in a few weeks,” says Amos proudly.  

“She’s going into criminal law and really had her finger on the pulse. 

“On a daily basis she’s seeing things that the wider public probably isn’t, unless you’re a political journalist. 

“We’re so inundated that the little freedoms being quietly taken away can be missed. 

“Criminal law is her calling.

“So, writing these songs with her, with her understanding of what’s happening in the field she’s chosen, and her exposure to the shock of what is being torn to pieces, was hugely important. 

“She says we are past constitutional crisis and what’s going on is absolutely shocking.” 

The final song, written last- minute for the album, is Ode To Minnesota — a response to the deaths caused by ICE agents there. 

She says: “Heinous, atrocious crimes are being committed and so this is the world of the record.”  

Amos, 62, has a long history of addressing America in song, and In Times Of Dragons continues that while exploring wider patterns of male power. 

It’s also a reminder of her role as a feminist icon and the influence she’s had on artists such as Lady Gaga, Florence Welch and St Vincent (real name Annie Clark).  

“Annie’s one of my dear friends,” she says of St Vincent.

“She’s fabulous. We have a giggle and I’m thrilled for her, for her art, and for the way she’s balancing motherhood so beautifully. 

“It’s lovely to see people who came to my shows when they were younger. 

“She’s talked to me about Choirgirl [Tori’s 1988 album From The Choirgirl Hotel] and what it meant to her when she first heard it, and we’ve had laughs about that. 

“And it’s the same with the guys too. 

“I’m off to an event later and the guy doing the Q&A used to stand by the stage door as a teenage gay kid.  

“To see these people grow up, and to still be able to bask in their creativity and development, is a beautiful thing to witness.” 

But while Amos is moved by the artists and fans who have grown up with her work, she is hesitant to define her own feminist legacy. 

She says: “It’s not for me to say, that’s more for other people to decide. 

“Believe it or not, I’m a bit introverted about that.

“What I think I’ve tried to do, and what I have done, is there for those who know it. 

“What’s important to remember is that there was no social media then.

“When people ask, ‘Was it easier back then?’, well, in some ways no, and in others yes. 

“We did have a music business with a few women in record companies, though only a few in executive positions.

“One or two could balls their way through, but you really had to.

“And if you didn’t have that tenacity in the Nineties — especially to get played on radio — it was tough. 

“At an alternative station in the States, they might add two women out of 64 slots, and the other 62 would be men.  

“I’ve spoken about that with some of my contemporaries over the years, Alanis [Morissette] being one of them, and it was not a good feeling — knowing that talented women with very good records were simply not being added to the station. 

“And touring took money. 

“That’s why I never had tour support.

“In the early days, I went out with just a piano, my tour manager and a sound guy. That was it. 

“We kept the costs down, and luckily the shows sold out, because the Press had really got behind me.” 

Today, Amos points to Dolly Parton as proof that women can keep evolving, performing and owning the stage on their own terms as they get older.

“She is fantastic and she’s aware we are a different generation that played this game and played it well,” says Amos.

“There are women who are still playing the game beautifully, and they still have the physicality and the health to do it.  

“I used to have a three-and-a-half octave range when I was doing those one-woman shows.

“But with the change of life — becoming a dragon, if that’s the menopause analogy — you adapt or you collapse.

“For me, it wasn’t a crisis in the way it has been for some women we’ve read about in the Press, and I have huge empathy for that.

“But vocally, I did have to make changes. 

“I didn’t want to alter the top lines of songs with those very high, wide-ranging melodies, so on the last tour I simply didn’t play them.  

“Then I thought, ‘No, that isn’t what I want.

“I want the whole catalogue available to me as a storyteller’. 

“So, I decided to bring in backing singers who could hit those notes.

“It was a strategic, compositional choice.

“I didn’t want to be in a position where I could only perform 40 per cent of my catalogue because of range. 

“And we’re having a blast. 

“They’re amazing singers. 

“I’ve gained four notes at the lower end and I feel like I’m down there rocking with Nick Cave, but that’s the trade-off. 

“I gained more on the lower end, while recognising that if I want to play those songs, you can only transpose them down so far before they lose their essence. 

“I have so much respect for Nick Cave.

“I used to run into him in the early Nineties.

“His work has always been a beacon of beauty and darkness — expansive work that makes you think.” 

Like Cave, Amos remains restlessly creative, and she is already thinking about where to go next.  

“After something as demanding as this, I’m doing a prequel to children’s book Tori And The Muses — that will be out next year,” she says.

“Her journey as a little girl with her muses.  

“It’s due next April — and there may be music to go with it too.” 

•  In Times Of Dragons is out on May 1. 

TORI AMOS 

In Times Of Dragons 

★★★★☆

WASHINGTON — Reporters assigned to travel aboard Air Force Two were told to prepare for an early morning departure on Tuesday for Islamabad until an unexplained delay — followed by a detour by Vice President JD Vance to the White House — revealed clues that something was wrong.

Iranian diplomats had not yet responded to U.S. proposals intended to form the basis of a new round of talks. Some were questioning whether they would attend at all. Had he departed as planned, Vance risked a humiliation, spending hours flying to Pakistan only to be stood up on arrival.

A crisis meeting at the White House led President Trump to announce an indefinite extension to a ceasefire deadline that had been set as a pressure tactic. Now, unable to bring the Iranians to heel, that pressure was suddenly off.

It was an early lesson for Vance in the many ways high-stakes diplomacy can veer off-course.

“There are obvious risks for Vance,” said Chester Crocker, who served as an assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, “being associated with failure or with a dubious deal.”

Trump’s aides are clear on the stakes in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and an end to the war. Control of the Strait of Hormuz could determine global oil prices for years. Any final deal will shape whether Americans ultimately conclude the fight was worth it — and could sway the outcome of the midterm elections.

But for America’s lead negotiator, the stakes are also personal.

Vance, a diplomatic novice, has found himself at the helm of an effort rife with political risk that has stymied seasoned diplomats ahead of an anticipated run for president.

The potential payoff is substantial, placing Vance at the center of an international stage with the power to end a historically unpopular war.

But he also may be forced to attach his name to a nuclear deal that provides Tehran access to billions of dollars in sanctions relief, in exchange for limits on its nuclear work that will ultimately expire over time, under conditional monitoring access for international inspectors — an agreement with striking echoes to a 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by a Democratic administration that was disparaged by his party for over a decade.

Vance is negotiating not on his own terms, but on behalf of a mercurial president whose decisions will ultimately determine whether an agreement can be reached. And the Iranians know that Trump’s days in office are numbered, with Vance, a war skeptic, possibly in line to succeed him.

One U.S. official familiar with the negotiations said the vice president is “a pragmatist,” realistic about the prospects of a deal.

“What he has to gain is an image that he can operate effectively on the world stage on a fraught issue. Even if he will give credit to the president, he will be seen as capable of resolving really hard, security-related problems,” said Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. “What he has to lose is that he was given the role and did not succeed.”

Failure could raise doubts about his statecraft. But even success at the negotiating table could result in an agreement that turns off Republican voters he may need in a 2028 presidential bid.

“Vance is put in an impossible position,” said Arne Westad, a professor of history at Yale.

“Any deal with the current Iranian regime will be seen as problematic by many Republicans,” Westad said. “If he fails to secure a deal, he will be attacked by those who want an end to the U.S. war — and be seen as ineffective by the president.”

Reputation ‘on the line’

Trump has publicly acknowledged that Vance, a Marine Corps veteran who has consistently opposed U.S. military engagements in the Middle East, had reservations over launching the Iran war in the first place. “He was, I would say, philosophically a little bit different than me,” the president told reporters in March. “I think he was maybe less enthusiastic.”

For that reason, according to Iranian state media reports, Vance was seen by Tehran as their preferred interlocutor in negotiations. Iranian officials expressed gratitude when, during fevered talks ahead of the initial announcement of a ceasefire, they learned that Steve Witkoff, the president’s roving negotiator, had recommended that the vice president be included in the delegation — an exceptional gesture that marked Washington’s highest-level engagement with the Islamic Republic in history.

Republican strategists said Vance’s participation is a demonstration that Trump trusts him, an essential trait for any future Republican presidential nominee and aspiring heir to the MAGA movement.

“It’s rare that a vice president has been put in the position of directly negotiating with a foreign adversary,” said Terry Nelson, a longtime Republican media strategist. “We are engaging a very senior political leader in negotiations with a country that has killed U.S. soldiers and sown chaos in the region. I do think it’s an indication of our resolution and seriousness.”

Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster who has consulted Republican senators and governors for more than three decades, said the vice president’s appointment as lead negotiator “elevates Vance as Trump’s heir-apparent even more than before.”

“Whether that becomes a plus or a minus depends on the outcome of the negotiations,” Ayres added, “and Trump’s ultimate standing with the Republican electorate, both of which are unknowns.”

Talks are currently deadlocked over long-standing demands from Tehran that its leadership has held since the early 2000s, when previously undisclosed nuclear activities first triggered international alarm over Iran’s expanding program.

Iran has periodically accepted temporary limits on its nuclear work — pausing uranium enrichment during talks and, under the 2015 deal, committing to a prolonged cap on enrichment at levels beyond any clear civilian need. But it has always insisted on a “right to enrich” on its own soil, rejecting U.S. attempts to permanently end the program as a foreign attempt to thwart Iran’s scientific progress.

Returning from the first round of ceasefire negotiations, Vance dismissed that position, articulated to him in Islamabad by the speaker of Iran’s Parliament.

“He said, ‘We refuse to give up the right to enrichment,’” Vance said. “And I thought to myself, you know what, my wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn’t jump out of an airplane, because she and I have an agreement that she’s not going to do that, because I don’t want my wife jumping out of an airplane.”

Echoes of a broken deal

The 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — negotiated by veteran, nonpolitical U.S. diplomats and nuclear scientists over two years of near-constant negotiations — removed roughly 98% of Iran’s nuclear stockpile from the country, while keeping the country’s nuclear infrastructure largely in place, save for the decommissioning of a heavy-water plutonium reactor that could have provided Tehran with a second path to a nuclear bomb.

Under the agreement, Iran consented to limit its use of advanced centrifuges for 10 years, and to restrict uranium enrichment to below weapons-grade levels for 15 years. Inspectors from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency were granted unprecedented access to monitor the program, though some of these enhanced inspection measures were set to expire after roughly two decades.

In exchange, Iran regained access to tens of billions of dollars of its frozen assets, and settled a long-standing legal dispute with Washington that led the Obama administration to transfer $400 million in cash to Tehran. The episode prompted scandal on the political right, which accused Democrats of fueling terrorism through the funding of Iran’s proxy militias.

Now, after just two weeks of negotiations, the Trump administration is already acknowledging that a final deal with Iran would rely on a familiar formula: temporary caps on Iran’s nuclear work in exchange for substantial sanctions relief. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018.

Iran comes to the talks with added leverage today, able and willing to disrupt the flow of 20% of the world’s energy through the Strait of Hormuz. And the United States is negotiating alone, without its former partners in the “P5+1” — Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and Germany — at its side.

Anna Kelly, principal deputy press secretary at the White House, told The Times that “after Democrats like Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama weakened our country on the world stage, President Trump has effectively restored American strength with the help of Vice President Vance, who is doing a great job leading the United States in negotiations with Iran.”

“The president and his entire national security team have an incredible track record in making good deals for our country, and the American people can rest assured that the United States will not enter any agreement that does not put our national security interests first,” Kelly said.

Matt Gorman, a longtime Republican strategist and chief communications officer at Targeted Victory, said the JCPOA was viewed particularly critically because it “was negotiated in peacetime.”

“Vance would essentially be ending a war, if successful, and that allows him to make a very different argument,” Gorman said.

The vice president is currently polling as the front-runner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, ahead of Marco Rubio, who — despite serving as Trump’s secretary of State and national security advisor — is not directly involved in the Iran talks.

Vance’s role at the negotiating table could help position him as a peacemaker, Crocker noted, distinguishing him from advocates of the war entering the presidential primaries.

But Vance “has been tasked by a president incapable of staying on message, with limited stores of credibility with adversaries as well as allies and a disregard for the complexities of the issues,” said Barbara Bodine, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen. “His task? A credible end to the war without clear objectives.”

“At best, this will be a faux-gilded JCPOA 2.0. Victory will be declared to no applause. On the line is not just Vance’s own reputation, but a demerit in his run for the 2028 presidency,” Bodine added. “The Iran portfolio was no gift.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How a Trump-endorsed Republican could become California’s next governor
The deep dive: Palisades reservoir that was empty during fire is dry again. Residents aren’t happy about it
The L.A. Times Special: The Flores twins built a drug empire with El Chapo — then betrayed him

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.