Hi, it's Naila Boodoo, your host for this edition of The News Roundup, just a quick heads-up before we start the show.

The news is rapidly changing. Things may have changed by the time you hear this episode.

Stay up to date with all the latest by listening to your local NPR station and visiting npr.org.

I'm Naila Boodoo. It's the 1A podcast. You're listening to the weekly news roundup.

President Trump started the week warning of apocalyptic consequences for Iran if it did not open the straight of Hormuz.

Then Tuesday, just ahead of his 8 p.m. deadline, news of a ceasefire agreement between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Secretary of Defense Hegsseth says, quote, Iran

begged for a ceasefire. With Israel unleashing its deadliest attacks yet on Lebanon in the

hours that followed, it doesn't look much like a ceasefire right now.

This hour, we're going to try to make sense of what's going on and what the White House is saying.

Plus, we're going to be talking about results in Wisconsin and Georgia elections and hear how the Artemis II mission has fared ahead of its scheduled splashdown tonight.

Here in the studio for that and more, Arthur Delaney, senior reporter at Huff Post. Thanks for joining us, Arthur. Great to be here. Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Bloomberg. Jeff, welcome. Thank you. And Neftali, Ben David, Washington editor at the Washington Post. Neftali, welcome back to 1A. Thanks for having me. Neftali, let's start with the ceasefire. It didn't actually stop the violence, which is traditionally the definition of a ceasefire, especially as we're thinking about what happened in Lebanon. Can you tell us what the agreement was supposed to entail and how this came about? Well, it was pretty vague. I mean, the idea was that Iran was going to let shipping go through the Strait of Hormuz, and in return,

the U.S. and presumably Israel, would stop their attacks. But there are these three enormous holes,

I think, in this ceasefire. First of all, the reopening of the strait was the central element of it,

and yet Iran and the U.S. seemed to completely disagree on what that means. It's not at all clear that Iran's going to open up the straight in the way that the U.S. expected it to. Secondly, how could they not think about Lebanon? I mean, there seems to be a disagreement between the two sides about whether or not Lebanon was part of this. It was part of it, and that's either strategic ambiguity and was intentional or they really just

never got around to nailing that down. Either way, it's an enormous vulnerability for the ceasefire. And lastly, I would just say that in general terms, Israel is kind of a wildcard here. I mean, they're not really part of the ceasefire. They've said that they are supporting it, but they have their own agenda. They clearly don't feel bound

by all parts of it, the way that the U.S. and Iran are. So that's another wildcard. And so I think

with a ceasefire like that, it's very unclear what it even means, let alone whether it's going to

hold. With all of that, Arthur, can I just zero in for a second on the situation in Lebanon? Is that the main reason why we think the ceasefire is fragile or shaky?

What else should we be thinking about in addition to what Neftali was talking about?

That's where the violence is happening.

So yes, it's the main reason it's shaky.

But the whole thing, like Noftali said, is totally ambiguous.

...