Trump says he will ‘permanently’ open Strait of Hormuz - and he’s doing it for China

Thousands of American soldiers are on board this warship, the USS George H.W. Bush, slowly making its way to the Middle East, attempting to up pressure on Iran, alongside the U.S. now blockading the Strait of Hormuz as Donald Trump scrambles for an off-ramp, insisting to Fox News that he's close. And I think it can be over very soon. The president also addressed global relationships, China's with Iran, and his with President Xi Jinping. He's somebody I get along with very well. He just wrote me a beautiful letter. He wrote you a letter? Yeah, he did. He responded to a letter that I wrote because I had heard that China's giving weapons to, I mean, you're seeing it all over the place, to Iran, that China's giving weapons. Did he say he's giving them? And I wrote him a letter asking him not to do that, and he wrote me a letter saying that essentially he's not doing that. Then the president wrote on Truth Social, China is very happy that I'm permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz. I'm doing it for them also, and the world. He then said President Xi will give me a big fat hug when I get there in a few weeks. Xi Jinping, due to meet Trump in Beijing next month, did give one world leader a big fat hug back in 2024, Vladimir Putin. The Russians, this time with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, were back in the Chinese capital today, and they weren't the only ones courting China. Yesterday, President Xi welcomed a Spanish PM, saying they both wanted to stand on the right side of history. And then came a delegation from the UAE, with Xi saying human society faced a choice between peace and war. Trump's claim about reopening the Strait of Hormuz doesn't chime with this. Turn around and prepare to be boarded. If you do not comply with this blockade, we will use force. The US military ordering ships to comply with its blockade, saying none have passed through in 48 hours. The president insists this is how he will achieve peace with Iran, in a war that has seen his temper rise, lashing out at NATO. They weren't there for us. Spain. Spain has been terrible. And then... South Korea didn't help us. You know who else didn't help us? Australia didn't help us. You know who else didn't help us? Japan. Oh, and the Pope. I think he's very weak on crime. But still, no one gets quite as much flack as Keir Starmer, with Trump telling Sky News he could still change the UK's trade deal. Surely the prime minister can't send our king to meet a man who treats our country like a mafia boss running a protection racket. My position on the Iran war has been clear from the start. We're not going to get dragged into this war. It is not our war. And a lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course. And that pressure included what happened last night. I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not going to yield. Meanwhile, the chancellor did not hold back in Washington DC today, suggesting Trump should have stuck with diplomacy and never started the war. There was a diplomatic channel open. Conversations, discussions, formal discussions were happening. I think it was a mistake to end those and to enter into conflict, because I'm not convinced that we are safer today than we were a few weeks ago. Rachel Reeves said the economic impacts on Britain have been huge, and America's objectives unclear. We had the waterway open a few weeks ago. So if now the objective is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, well, it was open at the beginning of this conflict. And that's what I mean about being clear about what the objectives of this conflict is. Meanwhile, Pakistan's army chief greeted Iran's foreign minister in Tehran, carrying a message from the US. A flurry of diplomatic activity, but will this end soon? You know, normally over the past 20 years, I've listened to British politicians speaking very carefully, especially when it comes to the US. They always choose their language carefully, but not anymore. What we're seeing now is a sea change, not only from Trump to the UK, but listening to Rachel Reeves today, that was a chancellor who had really lost her temper when it comes to the economic impact this is happening back in the UK and was willing to speak out about it. Meanwhile, here in the US, Caroline Leavitt, Donald Trump's press secretary, was talking up diplomacy, praising the role of the Pakistanis in all of this. But there isn't very diplomatic language. They've gone from Operation Epic Fury to what they're calling Operation Economic Fury, and the Iranians are threatening to retaliate over the Strait of Hormuz. Thanks, Anoushka. Well, earlier I spoke to John Bolton, who served as the US national security advisor in Trump's first term, but has more recently been defending himself against charges of mishandling classified documents in a case that's been widely seen as part of a crackdown on Trump critics. I asked him what he thought Donald Trump's Truth Social media post about reopening the Strait of Hormuz permanently actually meant. I think he has been trying, and the Gulf Arab states have been trying, to put pressure on China to tell Tehran that they need to stop trying to halt everybody else's traffic out of the Gulf. And it may be that China's made some progress on that point, but I think the US blockade against Iran has to maintain for at least several more weeks because I think, fundamentally, we need to clear the Iranian threat militarily. I mean, it's disastrous for the rest of the world, though, isn't it? It's not the American blockade that's the problem for everybody else. It's the Iranian blockade. And so I think if Trump is doing this correctly, we ought to stop all Iranian oil but clear the military threat that Iran poses and let the oil from the Gulf Arabs out. But about 10% to 15% of the ships were getting through before Trump announced the blockade, which obviously is still pretty bad for the world economy, but not as bad as zero. Well, it's Iranian ships that were getting through, and that's unacceptable. What do you think Trump will have achieved if this does end up being some sort of negotiated settlement? You know, he's talking about talks again this week. Well, I think he's talking about talks because the stock market loves to hear it, and that's what he depends on. You know, I don't know what there is to talk to the Iranians about, but Trump's always hopeful there's a deal in there somewhere. Yes, but if there is a deal that leaves the Iranian regime in place and doesn't mean them handing over their enriched uranium, what was the war about? I think Trump's problem is he wants out of this crisis that he's in. He is worried about markets. He is worried about the price of gasoline at the pump, and he's worried about its effect on the November elections. He wants out, but he wants to do it in a way that he won't get blamed for it. What would you want him now to hold out for? He has said that the nuclear issue has to be resolved satisfactorily, and there's zero evidence the Iranians are prepared to give him what he says he wants, which is he wants all that what he calls nuclear dust. I think he must mean enriched uranium. He wants that and other stuff out. Even if you got that, how do you actually make sure that they don't just make some more? Well, I'm sure they will. I'm sure they will. I'm sure. And that's why when you try for 47 years to change a regime's behavior on nuclear weapons issues, on terrorism, now we see the threat to the Strait of Hormuz. When you try for 47 years to change their behavior and don't succeed, the only alternative policy is change the regime. And do you think that is actually still possible? Yes, I do. I think the regime has been very badly damaged by these strikes, and the signal it sends inside Iran to opponents of the regime who are overwhelming in their numbers, this regime can't protect itself. And a regime that can't protect itself is a regime whose days are numbered. What is the other sort of danger in terms of where Trump is, given he will walk away from this not having won and less popular than he was when he started it? Well, he certainly created a political problem for himself that could have been avoided, in my view, if he had taken the time well in advance of military action to make the case to the American people, which I think is very compelling that the regime has to go. But he didn't do that. He didn't consult with Congress. He didn't consult the allies. He didn't even consult the opposition inside Iran. So he's taken steps that inevitably make it much more difficult to accomplish whatever his objective is. What do you make of how Trump has blown apart his old alliances and criticized Britain and NATO and others over the last few weeks? Do you think any of that is lasting in its impact, or can it all be patched up? Well, I think after he's gone, it can be patched up. I think he's going to do more damage. It's not going to be easy. And I think the Europeans should not assume that Trump represents the future for America for the next 100 years. It's just not the case. Ambassador Bolton, thank you very much. Thank you. Well, as we've heard, the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has made some of her most pointed criticisms yet of the US war in Iran and its impact on British families. It's her view chiming with other finance ministers gathering for the International Monetary Fund spring meeting. Our economics editor, Helia Ebrahimi, is in Washington. Helia? Well, Christian, you know, the President might be declaring the end of the war, but as Anushka was saying just a moment ago, the war of words between the UK and the US is only intensifying. I just spoke to the Chancellor, actually, and she has come to Washington battle-ready. She is absolutely determined that this conflict has to end soon. Her opening salvo in Washington was to criticise President Trump for not having a clear exit route in this conflict. This morning, she put together a coalition of, let's call it, the unwilling, Spain, Norway, Australia, Japan, all saying that they would collaborate together and all decrying the knee-jerk reactions in this crisis that will undoubtedly have huge implications for people worldwide. On the other side of the equation, President Trump was threatening to derail the entire UK trade deal. Yes, and there are people in the Trump administration who also think that all of this is rather good for their economy. Yes, Kevin Hassett, who is head of Trump's Economic Council, was talking to bankers and journalists today, saying actually everything is great in the US. He was talking about higher oil prices being beneficial for the US economy. There's lots of chatter here about prices of petrol at the gas pump, affordability, midterms, but if you were going to listen to Hassett, he would say that everything here is going very well. Thanks, Helen.