During the 2016 presidential campaign, when asked for his approach to tackling some of the most challenging global security dilemmas, then-candidate Donald J. Trump suggested a straightforward strategy for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.
He criticized Barack Obama’s negotiation tactics, claiming the team should have been more aggressive by walking away from the discussions, prompting the Iranians to plead for a better deal. “It’s a deal that could’ve been significantly improved had they left the table more than once,” Mr. Trump remarked to two reporters from The New York Times. “Their negotiation skills were atrocious.”
Now, with Iran closer to acquiring the capability to produce a nuclear weapon than at the time of the last agreement—partly due to Mr. Trump’s own decision to withdraw from the deal in 2018—the current president faces an opportunity to demonstrate the right approach.
Currently, the divide between the U.S. and Iran seems substantial. Iran appears to be seeking a revision of the original Obama-era accord, which restricted their nuclear stockpiles, while the U.S. aims to dismantle Iran’s extensive nuclear enrichment infrastructure, missile program, and long-standing backing of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
What is critically lacking is time.
“Reaching an agreement swiftly is crucial,” stated Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, the leading Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, emphasizing that Mr. Trump’s exit from the Iran nuclear agreement was a “serious error.” “Iran’s nuclear program progresses daily, and with the snapback sanctions about to lapse, we risk losing significant leverage.”
Snapback sanctions permit the rapid reinstatement of United Nations sanctions on Iran and are scheduled to expire on October 18.
Mr. Trump now faces the pressure of achieving a deal that is substantially more stringent than the one negotiated during the Obama administration, serving as a benchmark for gauging his success. To exert leverage, his administration has already hinted at the potential for military action if negotiations falter, although it remains unclear whether these strikes would be led by the U.S., Israel, or a joint force.
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned that there would be “serious consequences” if the Iranians fail to negotiate with Mr. Trump.
“The Iranians will be taken aback when they realize they are not negotiating with Barack Obama or John Kerry,” noted Senator Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, referring to the former secretary of state who managed the U.S. negotiations. “This is an entirely different scenario.”
Negotiations are set to commence on Saturday, with Steve Witkoff, a friend of the president and fellow New York real estate mogul, reportedly leading the American delegation. Mr. Witkoff, who is also involved in discussions regarding Gaza and Ukraine, lacks a known background in complex nuclear fuel enrichment technology and the intricacies of nuclear bomb production.
The initial challenge he will encounter pertains to the negotiation scope. The Obama-era agreement focused solely on the nuclear program and did not address Iran’s missile capabilities—governed by separate strictures from the United Nations that Tehran has disregarded—or its support for terrorism.
National security adviser Michael Waltz has emphasized that any new agreement under the Trump administration must encompass all facets, demanding that Iran’s extensive nuclear facilities be entirely dismantled rather than allowed to operate at minimal capacity, as stipulated in the 2015 arrangement.
“Iran must fully relinquish its program in a manner that is transparent to the world,” he stated on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in March. He mentioned “complete dismantlement,” resulting in a scenario where Iran would have no missiles, no proxy forces, and no avenues to develop a bomb.
On Monday, Mr. Trump indicated that discussions with Iran would be “direct,” meaning U.S. negotiators would communicate openly with their Iranian counterparts. However, the Iranian side seems to contradict this, as Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, published an article in The Washington Post on Tuesday asserting that the country is “prepared for indirect negotiations with the United States.” He stated that the U.S. must first guarantee that military options are off the table.
“It’s clear they want to engage,” remarked Jim Walsh, a senior research associate at MIT’s Security Studies Program. “However, there’s a distinction between negotiation and capitulation. Are we presenting a set of demands, or are they faced with attack? That approach won’t be viable.”
The stakes in this negotiation environment are higher than during the Obama years. Iran’s nuclear program has progressed since Mr. Trump abandoned the earlier agreement; it is now enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, which is just shy of weapon-grade. American intelligence assessments suggest that Iran is pursuing a quicker, albeit less refined, route to developing an atomic weapon that would allow them to produce one in months, should its leaders decide to race for a bomb.
Nevertheless, Iran finds itself in a weaker bargaining position in some respects.
In October, Israel effectively neutralized nearly all of Iran’s air defenses safeguarding its nuclear sites. Additionally, Iran’s regional affiliates, Hezbollah and Hamas, have been significantly undermined and are not in a position to retaliate against Israel should its nuclear installations come under threat.
Several other elements are influencing the situation.
Iran might utilize its alliance with Russia as the U.S. attempts to negotiate a resolution to the Ukraine conflict. Additionally, the Justice Department has accused Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of plotting to assassinate Mr. Trump last year, casting a shadow over the talks. Furthermore, would Israel and Congressional Republicans accept any nuclear agreement that is reached, even if it proves to be less robust than the one negotiated by the Obama administration?
Dennis Jett, a professor of international affairs at Pennsylvania State University and author of a book about the Iran nuclear deal, expressed doubts about Mr. Trump’s willingness to remove the military option from consideration, reducing the likelihood of a fruitful negotiation.
“I expect these discussions will be brief and unproductive,” he remarked, noting that Mr. Witkoff is “a New York real estate figure who seems to believe that diplomacy is merely about securing a deal. It’s far more complex than that.”
Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian American policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, cautioned that the Trump negotiation team might lack the necessary expertise.
“This isn’t just about negotiating a final price tag or a big bargain; it involves intricate technical matters like uranium enrichment levels, centrifuge details, and inspection protocols,” he stated. “There exists a significant gap between asserting that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons and insisting that its nuclear program must be ‘dismantled’ akin to Libya’s. The U.S. team, which currently lacks clear expertise and a defined strategy, runs the risk of being outmaneuvered by an Iranian side that has both.”
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a specialist in Middle Eastern security and nuclear policy at Princeton University, believes there could still be potential for a favorable negotiation outcome, wherein both sides might exit the table with a deal that they can present positively to their respective audiences, potentially including provisions for regular inspections of Iran’s facilities.
“Steve Witkoff, as far as I understand, is genuinely interested in brokering a deal. He aims to avoid war and shares a similar mindset with President Trump,” Mr. Mousavian commented. “Hence, I see potential for success. Yet the reality remains that the U.S. and Iran must navigate 45 years of hostility, making consensus complex.”
