I'm Kevin Roos. I'm Casey Newton. And we're the hosts of Hard Fork, a show from the New York Times about technology and the future. About the future that's already here, Kevin. Every week on the show, we bring you news from the front lines of tech, interviews with key newsmakers, wacky experiments that we get up to, and we just generally have a lot of fun. Yeah, so whether you're curious about developments in AI or just what's happening on TikTok, we are here for you. So that's Hard Fork. You can find it wherever you get your podcasts. From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. After days of promising that a ceasefire was near, President Trump late Sunday announced that he had reached a deal with Iran. Today, David Sanger, who spoke to the president, explains what is and is not included in the agreement and how much closer it gets both sides to ending the war for good. It's Monday, June 15th. David Sanger, thank you so much for joining us. Rachel, great to be with you. It is 8 p.m. in New York. It's after 1 a.m. in London where you are right now. So thank you for making the time. Tell us what you know about this very late-breaking deal with Iran. Well, Rachel, as you know, this deal has been brewing for a long time, and it's been subject to a lot of up-and-down negotiations between Iran and the United States, even as the war went from active combat to a ceasefire to that flare-up that we saw just in the past week when the U.S. resumed bombing of Iran for several days. And we fought for a while, but that might kill any hope of having what they've just agreed to on Sunday night, which is a preliminary memorandum of understanding. That's really all they've done here, an agreement to reopen the Strait, to end the blockade of Iran, and to begin a serious conversation about the nuclear program. And in the end, the United States and the Iranians all determined it was in their interest to do that, to end the fighting and get back to the talking. And, David, you actually spoke with the president. Tell us about that conversation. I did, Rachel. It was a little bit of an unexpected call. And I think you said earlier in London, as you said, and around 4.30 in Washington, about 9.30 here, the president called to talk about the deal that he put together and to celebrate it, to argue that it was much better than what President Obama had negotiated in 2015, a negotiation that I followed closely at the time. And a deal that the president ripped up in his first term. We should remind listeners. Ripped up in his first term, criticized harshly, and has criticized again even on Sunday, because he's very sensitive about the argument that some Democrats have made, and many nuclear experts have made, that he hasn't gotten as much yet from the Iranians as President Obama did. And, of course, President Obama did not resort to war. So the call was mostly to make the argument that he'd gotten something big here, something that had remade the Middle East, and something that will make the entire region and Israel safe from an Iranian bomb in the future. I should note, David, that one of the reasons this call, at least the surprising to me a little bit, was that it was not that long ago that you were on Air Force One, and the president said that your reporting on the war was treasonous. Yeah, well, Rachel, what can I tell you? It's a hazard of White House reporting. He reacted badly to a series of news analyses that made the point that he had not yet accomplished his political objectives, including ending the Iranian nuclear program. And he still hasn't. But I think he wanted to try to make the case, because I think he cares about what the Times reports that he was on the road to something that he believes will be better than the Obama deal. It'll be a while before we know whether that's the case. I think another takeaway from the fact that he called you, despite how angry he was with you quite recently, is that this deal really matters to him. We have talked on the show about how much the president has been looking for an off-ramp to this war. And I just sort of wonder, given all of that, if you could tell us a little bit about what his mood was like, did he seem, I don't know, victorious at all? He sounded celebratory, and he clearly thinks that he has found his off-ramp. Now, let's remember, Rachel, that when he went into this war, the Strait of Hormuz was open, and it was running toll-free. One of the things he wanted to tell me was that he believes under this agreement, Iran will never impose tolls again. Of course, the agreement itself, we believe, we haven't seen the text of it, only refers to suspending tolls for the next 60 days. He also told me that he was convinced that Iran would comply and reach the next-stage agreement on the nuclear accord and talked about specific provisions. But we have to remember, he hasn't negotiated any of those positions yet with the Iranians. And he said that if Iran didn't complete that deal, he would either resume military action or begin to have the United States patrol the Gulf in return for 20% of all the revenues, presumably mostly oil revenues, that are received in the region. That's a very different use of American power in the Middle East. It's also very Trumpian, right? So he was trying to make the case that the United States was not only recovering, not only had the blockade worked and the bombing worked, but that he was on the way to remaking the region. Right, to your point, the threat of demanding 20% of a country or a region's revenues seems like a very difficult thing to calculate, let alone in force. But just to summarize, the points that he did say to you seem to be things that we've heard for a while. He is reopening the Strait of Hormuz, there will be no tolls, there will be a 60-day ceasefire, this lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports. Have we heard from the Iranians in all of this? What is the status of actually signing on the dotted line for all of the parties involved? As of the moment when we're speaking, neither party has talked about actually signing this agreement, although we're told that there will be, if there hasn't already, been an electronic signing, think a docusign for an international agreement. And then on Friday in Switzerland, a more formal signing that presumably will include Vice President JD Vance. And that would probably be the beginning of the negotiations for the next phase. But what was unusual about the president's call is that as he described and walked me through the nuclear agreements that he believed they were going to reach, many of which we've already written about in the past few days, he was basically describing agreements that he wanted to make sound as if they had already been reached. But when pressed, acknowledged that this is all subject to this later and in my view much more important document, which would be much more like what the Obama administration negotiated 11 years ago, specifics about whether or not Iran can enrich uranium, whether it has to give up its stockpile of nuclear fuel and so forth. Okay, David, so a lot of unknowns as you're explaining to us. Was there anything else that struck you about the call or the deal or anything else? Well, one of the things that I thought was surprising about the conversation was that the president went out of his way to praise two authoritarian leaders who we didn't think had a whole lot to do with this final deal, Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China. And he praised them for essentially not getting involved. He was mildly critical of the Europeans for offering to help only after the fighting ended. And he was deeply critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who went to extraordinary lengths to try to keep this agreement from coming together. We'll be right back. I'm Dan Barry and I'm a longtime reporter with The New York Times. I've been here for 30 years and I've seen a lot of things change. I was here before there was a website. But one thing hasn't changed at all and that's the mission of The New York Times, to follow the facts wherever they lead. And if that means publishing something a government or a leader or a celebrity doesn't want to aired, that's not our concern. I've never been told to go against the facts to accommodate anyone. And if I had, I would have quite frankly left the building. This is the way it was when I was covering the aftermath of 9-11. And this is the way it is now as I cover the United States of today. If you believe in the importance of fact-driven reporting, you can support it by becoming a New York Times subscriber. And if you already subscribe, this veteran reporter thanks you. David, we have talked a lot on the show about how even though the United States and Israel started this war together, their interests have pretty quickly diverged. We've seen that play out in the negotiations in recent days. We've seen that play out during the course of the war. Can you tell us a little bit more specifically about how Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a stumbling block to this deal that we saw announced on Sunday? Oh, Rachel, when the history of this war is written, the dynamic between the United States and Israel is going to be one of the most fascinating chapters. You'll remember that it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who made the case that if the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran together, the country was so fragile that the government would probably collapse in about three days, and that it would be taken over by forces that Israel and the United States would be able to control. And it was at that time that the President said to some of my Times colleagues in other conversations, this is going to be like Venezuela. And the only peace deal that he would be interested in, he said toward the beginning of the war, was an unconditional surrender by Iran. But as the war got more and more complicated and as the President needed a way out of a conflict in which there was going to be no quick victory and certainly no unconditional surrender, he and Netanyahu began to separate. And they separated in large part over Netanyahu's insistence that he continue the attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon because the Iranians began to make the case that the only ceasefire that they would sign would be a whole regional one that would also call off Israel's ability to attack Hezbollah. Now if you ask American officials around the President, that didn't mean that Israel couldn't defend itself if attacked by Hezbollah. But the splits you've seen in the past few weeks have all been over Netanyahu's insistence that he was going to finish the job and crush Hezbollah in Lebanon. Right. Israel does not want to be forced into an agreement that prohibits them from attacking what they see as an existential threat. That's absolutely right. And so they did not want to agree to any kind of accord that would put limits on their own military activity or even their ability to strike Iran at some point in the future. This agreement is supposed to be a regional agreement and includes a commitment that the U.S. would not re-attack Iran and presumably that its allies would not as well. So this turned into some screaming fights between Netanyahu and Trump, details of which began to leak out. And the conversations didn't get any easier and the President told me he had really hard conversations with Netanyahu in the past 48 hours after Israel attacked Beirut and other parts of Lebanon. David, did President Trump tell you what argument he is using to push Netanyahu to fall in line? Well, first he told me that Netanyahu was a very difficult guy, even while making the case that the President is a longtime supporter of Israel. But the President cast himself as the one who had Israel's long-term interest in mind more than Netanyahu did. He said to me, to be honest with you, he should be very thankful for us for doing this because Iran had a nuclear weapon. Israel wouldn't be around for two hours. Did the President tell you why he thinks that this time will be different? Like why Netanyahu will listen to him and not continue attacks against Iran and its proxies? He didn't. And the Israelis have made it pretty clear that they're not going to be bound to an agreement to which they weren't a party. They weren't involved in the negotiations. And yet the Iranians are making the case that this agreement applies not only to the United States, but to all of its allies. But at the end of the day, Israel's ultimate guarantor of security is the United States. And its ultimate supplier of arms is the United States. And while the President has never threatened either one of those, you can imagine that amidst what we are told are cursing matches between these two pretty strong-willed leaders is the underlying threat that if Israel doesn't go along, the United States' commitment may in some ways weaken. We know that the President in recent weeks has basically made the case to Netanyahu that he's lost a generation of Americans whose views of Israel are nowhere near what they were in President Trump's generation. That is really interesting. And I feel like I should pause here because I want to remind people that this is at the end of the day not a formal peace deal. Everything we're talking about is a memorandum of understanding. So it's essentially an agreement to engage in further talks. And I wonder, David, you are a White House correspondent. You are a national security expert. So given all of what you have reported so far on this war, how durable do you think this agreement actually is? You know, I think this is as durable as each side ultimately decides to make it. The fact of the matter is that a memorandum of understanding doesn't have any particular enforceable capability. This isn't a peace deal, as you said. It's not a nuclear deal. It's more like a table of contents, as one of the President's aides put it to me, for what needs to be negotiated next. Now, it does have a couple of more specific limitations. For example, it says in the memorandum of understanding that Iran is going to have to rid itself of its nuclear stockpile and begin to blend that down to a form that can't be used in nuclear weapons. But it's a long way from that general statement to saying, who's going to dig this out from under the rubble in Iran? Who's going to go melt it down? And who's going to have possession of the nuclear material later on? So it's not really an enforceable document. And it's very possible that the Iranians think this is all they need to get through two and a half more years of the Trump administration. And that they'll worry about the next steps, which will be lengthy and difficult to execute when they see who's the next President. David, you have made the points to us before on this show that the demands from the White House about what they want in order to reach a ceasefire have shifted or what their goals are for this war have shifted, such that what we might actually see if this war ended is simply a return to the status quo before it began. Now that you've spoken to the President and given what you know about what might be included in this deal, I just want to ask you, has your assessment shifted? It hasn't shifted much, Rachel. In the course of more than four months of war, we certainly have seen the United States succeed at destroying a good deal of Iran's missile capability. Not all of it, but a good deal. It has indeed sunk the Iranian Navy. There wasn't much of one, but it's gone. It has certainly wiped out what was left of the Iranian Air Force. But this agreement largely gets us back to where we were before the war started, which is to say, with the Strait of Hormuz open, assuming it happens as the President describes and expects, without a blockade of Iranian ports and with a negotiation over the nuclear program resuming in Switzerland. Now, it does raise one interesting question, though, Rachel. While the President said to me that he wants to make sure the nuclear material that's in Iran gets dug up from beneath the rubble of the facilities that were attacked a year ago by the U.S. Air Force, he didn't sound like he was in a huge rush. And he thought that the United States could keep an eye on it, that from satellites and from other means, we can make sure the Iranians don't use it to produce a weapon. But if we don't have an urgent reason to get it out, it does raise the question, why did this war happen to begin with? Because the overarching justification for the war at the time was that Iran was just weeks or months away from being able to build a weapon. In other words, did we need to have these three months of violence and incredible disruption? Or was there another way to get to where we find ourselves today? David Sanger, thank you so much. Thanks, Rachel. Great to be with you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. It's over! It's over! McFans, this is not a dream! For the first time in 53 years, the New York Knickerbockers won the NBA championship, beating the San Antonio Spurs in Game 5 of the Finals on Saturday night. Go ahead and cry! The Knicks are finally NBA champions once again! The Knicks won the series 4-1 after trailing by double digits in each of their victories, twice mounting seemingly impossible comebacks. I got no words. Everything ever turned out. They were led by the incomparable Jalen Brunson, a 6-foot-2 guard who overcame and outplayed the tallest man in basketball, Victor Wembenyama. To give New York the title and to bring raucous, ebullient joy to a city where many people had lost hope of seeing this particular hometown victory in their lifetime. We did it! We hung in there! Everybody hold me, New York! Go New York, go New York, go! I want to be your part of it! New York! Today's episode was produced by Mouch Sadi, Alec Stern, and Adrian Hurst. It was edited by Michael Benoit and Patricia Willins. Contains music by Alicia Bietupe and Dan Powell. Our theme music is by Wonderly, and this episode was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow. This week on The Wirecutter Show, the cost of consumer tech products, laptops, phones, gaming consoles is climbing. We have built a world that makes people need this stuff, and increasingly it's going to be very difficult for a broad category of people to afford. What's driving it and what can we do about it? Find out wherever you get your podcasts.
