Kurt Mills

Yesterday morning, Eastern Time, so as the negotiations were concluding at the end of the business day in Europe on Tuesday, the Iranian readout was quite positive on how the negotiations went.

They thought that they had a framework for continuing the talks and the US signal that the talks would continue.

The vice president's appearance on Fox News or Fox Business at the evening Eastern time, or at least when it aired, was open to some interpretation, a bit of a Rorschach test.

Some thought that Vance's rhetoric was pretty hawkish, indicating that they'd only signaled

that they were going to continue the talks.

Others thought that there was more of an opening there.

Vance, the vice president, only emphasized, as the president has emphasized, that no nuclear weapon is the goal.

So if that is the goal, in my view, they will come to a deal.

If the goal is more expansive, i.e.

zero enrichment, basically what it would take is 90% enrichment to get a nuclear weapon.

So if they accepted some low-level enrichment like 1.5%,

I think we would get a deal.

If the goal is zero enrichment or even more expansive ballistic missiles, then I think we are going to war.

And the report that Ravid, and you're right to say the Axios writer, is extremely plugged in, I believe he's a dual national or he's literally just an Israeli, says that not only is Trump considering going to war, that it's going to be a war that is far, far, far more expansive

than the operation that went on to Maduro.

Indeed, as the midnight hour approached Eastern Time last night, people very plugged into it thought that there was a chance not only of a strike, a la June 2025, but a broader maneuver.

And as the day has wound on today, Wednesday, the Iranians appeared prepared for that contingency

and that ship, the Ford, appears to be a lot closer to the region than people understood even a day ago.

I mean, look, the president has to decide basically what his criteria are.

I totally see a pathway to negotiation without the missiles.