Middle East Roundtable: JD Vance's No Good, Terrible, Very Bad Week

Welcome back to the Middle East Roundtable. This is Evan Moloney for Fronts.co here with Kyle Moran and Wilfred Mina. How are we doing today, boys?

Glad to be here. Wilfred W.: We're doing really good. I have my usual Red Bull Zero Sugar. Really happy to be here.

I am myself recovering from a cold here, so I apologize if I sound a little off, but we'll make do. War waits for no man. ________________________________________ Failed Iran–U.S. Negotiations

And speaking of which, war does not wait this week for U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who has had—if we could put it delicately—a no good, terrible, very bad week. In a lot of ways, not necessarily just Iran-related, but let's start with and mostly stay on the Iran stuff because that's what we're all here for.

Early this week, JD Vance was leading negotiations between Iran and the United States after a marathon 21-hour session. Those talks fell apart. So why don't we start with a bit of background. Let’s go to Kyle first this week, and then we’ll pivot to you. Kyle, what can you tell us about what happened at the start of this week?

Yeah, both sides had such dramatically different interpretations of what would be “an acceptable deal.” The Iranian foreign minister rather remarkably said that the two sides were within inches of reaching a deal.

I don’t know what type of inch system they use in Iran—I don’t think it's quite the same—because if they were within inches, these two were still so far apart. Whether you're talking miles, kilometers, or light-years, I think it's more toward the latter. None of what they were looking for was mutually compatible.

And I think Donald Trump knew this going into it, which is why he sent JD Vance—who had been more of an Iran war skeptic—potentially with the intention of showing that negotiations with this country are genuinely difficult. They are pro-negotiators and are not going to simply cave in.

That’s how I read it, especially since Vance had been sidelined for quite a while. He was at what we were calling the “kids table” with Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent earlier in the war. So I think this was partly to show him that this is more complicated than he may think.

And I think he got a firsthand dose of realism negotiating with the Iranians. ________________________________________ Current Situation & Blockade

That’s interesting—that it may have been a demonstration for Vance himself rather than just a good-faith negotiation. Wilfred, can you tell us more about where things stand coming out of those negotiations?

Wilfred W.: At the moment, from my understanding—and we should stress we have limited visibility since we’re not in those conversations—both sides are still very far apart. America has instituted a blockade on Iranian ports. I want to emphasize that—it’s a blockade on Iranian ports, not the entire strait, as some early reports suggested.

The U.S. is trying to prevent anything from entering or leaving Iranian ports as economic pressure to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. ________________________________________ Strait of Hormuz & Shipping

You mentioned a sort of double blockade—Iran enforcing tolls in parts of the strait, while the U.S. is setting up interdictions in the Arabian Sea. Wil, can you tell us what traffic, if any, is getting through?

Wilfred W.: One key issue is the mines Iran placed in the Strait of Hormuz—some of which, according to reports, they’ve “misplaced.” Because of currents, those mines can drift, making navigation extremely dangerous. Some ships are still passing through.

There was a report that a ship carrying Iranian oil reached India, though India refused it due to sanctions concerns. There are also reports of Chinese ships bypassing the blockade. But overall, very few shipowners are willing to risk vessels worth billions of dollars. So while some ships get through, the flow is extremely limited.

Yeah, there’s a lot of back and forth on this. One Chinese vessel made it through before the blockade fully took effect but had to turn back. At this point, there are essentially two routes: the Iranian route, which includes tolls, and the Omani route. Both are barely being used.

Since the blockade fully went into effect, essentially no vessels have gone through the Iranian route, and only a handful—maybe four—through Oman. So the Strait is basically shut down. ________________________________________

Let’s pivot into the economics. There are hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. Are we looking at long-term economic damage, or is there an off-ramp? Kyle?

I’m curious to see how the U.S. blockade evolves. Iran has already threatened to close the Red Sea via the Houthis. Iran has played its ace—its geographic control over Hormuz. Closing it is relatively easy—mines and drones don’t require complex operations. If the U.S. finds a way around this, that’s a major strategic loss for Iran.

If not, this could have huge consequences. Wilfred W.: The economic impacts will be significant. Saudi Arabia has already warned that escalation could disrupt trade beyond the Persian Gulf, including the Red Sea. If this continues, it could affect the global economy—not just Iran. ________________________________________

The U.S. blockade exists because of Iran’s blockade. If Iran stopped, the U.S. likely would too. Wilfred W.: That’s true, but Iran is unlikely to give up that leverage without major concessions. So a diplomatic resolution seems unlikely in the near term. ________________________________________

There’s a growing divide between Europe and Gulf states. Europe emphasizes diplomacy, while Gulf states—after decades of dealing with Iranian proxy networks—are far more skeptical. Iran has supported militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen for decades. That shapes how the region views this conflict. ________________________________________

The key question is whether diplomacy was ever viable. Iran’s actions—like targeting energy infrastructure—were responses to U.S. and Israeli strikes. That complicates the narrative. But now the situation has fundamentally changed.

Returning to the old status quo may not be possible. ________________________________________ Israel’s Role Wilfred W.: Israel’s goals differ from the U.S. For Israel, Iran is an existential threat. Because of proximity and Iran’s support for proxies, Israel is willing to go further militarily.

In Lebanon, Israel may establish a buffer zone, but this is also a rare opportunity—Lebanon’s current government is unusually cooperative. If Israel pushes too far, it could lose that opportunity. ________________________________________

What does this mean for the rules-based international order? Wilfred W.: It’s been weakening for years. This conflict just makes that more visible.

Agreed—it has always been backed by force more than rules. ________________________________________

What about China’s role?

China will likely stick to rhetoric—positioning itself as stable without real action. Wilfred W.: China prioritizes economic growth. Unless that changes, it won’t take a major role. ________________________________________

We’re expecting another round of Iran talks soon. JD Vance will be heading back to Islamabad. We’ll see where things stand next week. Wilfred W.: Before we close—the Pentagon is deploying about 6,000 additional troops aboard the USS George H. W. Bush.

As we’ve learned, this conflict won’t be boring anytime soon. This has been the Middle East Roundtable at Fronts.co. Thanks for joining us. ________________________________________ Post-Recording Discussion

I think that went very well. Good conversation. Hopefully my coughing wasn’t too annoying. Wilfred W.: That was a really good episode.

I’ll note the dead air spots before sending to Simon.

I accidentally said Iran instead of China at one point.

That’s fine.

There’s also been nonstop U.S. airlift activity into the Middle East—something we didn’t even get to. There’s a non-zero chance we’re discussing a return to war next week.

Yeah, I could see that. Wilfred W.: Agreed.

Any final notes?

All good. Wilfred W.: All good.

Alright—thanks everyone.