SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
The ceasefire declared by President Trump between Iran and Israel has been in place for less than a week. While missiles are on hold, the situation remains tense. The region has been hit by a series of conflicts since the start of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza over a year and a half ago and has, at times, sparked fighting in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and most recently Iran. Concerns reached an all-time high after the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, as well as other targets by Israel and the United States, especially among countries in the region who stand to become collateral damage should fighting resume. Michael Wahid Hanna is Crisis Group's U.S. program director, focusing on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia. He joins us from New York. Thanks so much for being with us.
MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Good to be with you, Scott.
SIMON: There's a ceasefire in place between Iran and Israel. How much confidence is there in the region in this agreement?
HANNA: I think there's a lot of uncertainty. I think, despite the triumphalism of President Trump and the Israelis really maximizing their sense of what the military strike has achieved, there continues to be real uncertainty about the practical effect in terms of nuclear infrastructure. There's real questions about the stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. And perhaps, most importantly, there is uncertainty about what Iran wants to do, what it will choose to do with its nuclear program. And, as you mentioned, that means that the Gulf States - who are quite vulnerable to what happens in this conflict and yet aren't necessarily in charge of the trajectory of events - continue to be quite wary that this military confrontation will mean that they are collateral damage in the midst of this bigger fight.
SIMON: How is Iran's nuclear program viewed in the region?
HANNA: Negatively, of course. There has been real fear about Iran and Iran trying to become a kind of hegemon. As much fear as there's been about the nuclear program and where it might be going, there's also been fear about Iran's network of proxies as - who've been engaged in this war that has erupted in the region since October 7, but that some of these proxies themselves have targeted the Gulf. And so there is real fear about Iranian intentions and actions, but many of these countries have decided in recent years that a confrontation was probably not their best bet. And so we've seen a kind of mass movement toward rapprochement with Iran. And many of the Gulf countries have renormalized relations with Iran in an effort to open dialogue and to see if perhaps a less confrontational approach to their neighbor might bear better results.
SIMON: The regional landscape has certainly changed since October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel, which, of course, triggered the conflict that still is going on. Are there concerns that a war between Israel and Iran could turn into a more protracted and lasting conflict?
HANNA: Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the big fears was that U.S. entrance into the war, as we saw last weekend, might kick off a much broader escalation and kick off a war, again, that would target the Gulf, right? One of the key issues was how Iran would respond. In the end - at the end of the day, they responded in a very constrained, telegraphed fashion, I think, in an effort to minimize the possibility that they would either kill Americans or hurt American interests in such a way that could draw the United States into the war.
But, of course, it didn't have to be that way. And, of course, there are real fears that Iran would perhaps target Americans, target American installations and perhaps target the Gulf itself - you know, oil infrastructure, the right of passage through the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. There are a variety of issues that were potential triggers for a much broader conflict. And, of course, that is a big worry.
SIMON: In the half a minute we have left, what does real long-term stability look like, or intermediate-term stability?
HANNA: Yeah. I think it comes with an agreement. Donald Trump has suggested that he might talk to the Iranians, and maybe there'll be an agreement - maybe not - but that he doesn't think there's necessarily a need for an agreement. And I think that's a mistake, if true. I think it's very clear that this kind of uncertainty will breed instability. It will create potential triggers for future conflict. Even Donald Trump himself, speaking yesterday, suggests that if the Iranians began to enrich again, that he would consider striking. And so without an agreement firmly governing what goes on in the Iranian nuclear program, I think it's real cause for concern.
SIMON: Crisis Group's Michael Wahid Hanna. Thanks so much for speaking with us.
HANNA: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF AMIR BRESLER'S "PLEASE DO") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
