I want to deny that it is possible because it is bad practice, but it is somewhat possible. First, you have to absorb the International Phonetic Alphabet in all of its detail. Second, you have to focus on what, exactly, those symbols mean, for example [a] is an "open front unrounded vowel". This is an articulatory description, which is frequently not open to ordinary inspection, but you can also consult various phonetics books and articles to see how to see the mostly-unseeable. However, the IPA page gives you reference performances of categories. Therefore you can follow the reasoning that "if it sounds most like [a], it is an open front unrounded vowel".
The next step is rather hard. I substitute a different example, "hoặc những chú", since I have a reasonable belief that this wasn't edited to destroy information (omitting diacritics that specify prounciation). The problem here is that we must struggle to figure out how this is pronounced, which is the basis for creating an IPA transcription. You might get lucky and ask a passer-by who speaks Vietnamese to say this, then using your acquired expert skills in converting language sounds to IPA letters, you can proffer a transcription. If your transcription is good enough, there is a chance that any well-trained linguist can pronounce what you wrote, and it would be perceivably similar to the original model.
The IPA has a limited range of symbolic categories, but it also has "adjustment diacritics" which allow you to nudge things a bit, for example "retracted relative to the standard position defined as 'front'". There are no standard performance models, so this is a difficult judgement. This allows you to gain a bit more precision, but not much. Such transcriptions are an extremely coarse-grained device for expressing phonetic facts, and are not designed to convey phonetic measurements, it is designed to convey phonological categories which are used in talking about actually-measured properties of sound or articulation. Actual numeric measurements are how we obtain precision.
Here's a synopsis of the fundamental limit on the method of symbolic writing. To start with, switch to English. How do you phonetically transcribe "how"? That varies extensively according to dialect. In Derry English it's something like "hoy". We can focus on American English, and reduce the problem a little but, but you still get [hæə, hæw, haw]. The more specific you are as to dialect and idiolect, the more meaningful it would be to ask a "spectrographic" question (note that you can't ever make a spectrogram of "how, in English", you can only make a spectrogram of a single utterance). It is trivial to see differences in the actual acoustic output of two utterances of a word from the same person. Yet we want to say that these are "the same thing", which tells you that a certain level of over-precision is undesirable.
Symbolic methods (transcriptions) are based primarily on an extensive program of training (getting the various vowel differences and internalizing them by multiple exposure) and careful auditory judgments, which can tell you that "ð" in Danish is clearly different from "ð" in English, and [c] in North Saami is clearly different from [c] in Hungarian. This is where the nudge diacritics may be useful so that Danish ð might be transcribed as [ð̠˕ˠ]. Hawrami (Kurdish) has a similar yet slightly different consonant, which might have to be transcribed the same way, given the desideratum of encoding sound properties in the transcription in a standard way, thus there are limits to the precision that one can gain.