Just a few weeks ago, Michael Waltz, President Trump’s national security adviser and a persistent critic of Iran, articulated the administration’s intention regarding negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions with undeniable clarity.
“Complete dismantlement,” he asserted. He detailed what that entailed: Iran needed to forfeit its facilities used for enriching nuclear fuel, engaging in “weaponization,” and even its long-range missile capabilities.
However, what appeared to be a straightforward, resolute target during a Sunday talk show has begun to falter. In the last 24 hours, officials have issued a conflicting and perplexing array of messages, indicating that the administration might accept limits on Iran’s activities — echoing the approach taken by President Barack Obama a decade earlier — before retreating on Tuesday.
This inconsistency could stem from a lack of experience in managing nuclear weapons programs. Mr. Trump’s chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, is a long-time friend of the president who, similar to Trump as a New York developer, has spent a career navigating cosmopolitan projects but only started exploring Iran’s clandestine nuclear centrifuges and suspected weapons facilities a few weeks ago.
Yet, the inconsistencies appear to be deeply embedded in the divisions within Mr. Trump’s national security team as they once again confront one of America’s most enduring and intricate foreign policy dilemmas: How to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations without resorting to military action. Currently, this has resulted in a barrage of mixed signals, contradictory messages, and overt threats that parallel Mr. Trump and his aides’ discussions about their shifting tariff policies.
The topic took center stage Monday evening when Mr. Witkoff began recounting his initial meeting with Iran’s foreign minister in Oman last Saturday. He characterized the meeting positively, delving into the intricate landscape of Iran’s nuclear agenda, which has brought the country to the brink of developing a weapon.
From that meeting, Mr. Witkoff envisioned a distinctly different type of agreement with Iran compared to the one articulated by Mr. Waltz.
In a cordial interview with Fox News, he discussed the establishment of a verification framework for the production of enriched uranium that would ultimately include verifying weaponization, incorporating the types of missiles Iran has stored, in addition to the triggers for a bomb. He hinted that Iran might still have the capacity to produce uranium at low levels necessary for nuclear power generation, omitting any mention of the term “dismantlement.”
Essentially, he was outlining a modified, presumably more Trump-aligned version of the agreement established by the Obama administration with Iran a decade ago. “In principle, the original nuclear deal can be improved,” he remarked. Mr. Trump has consistently criticized that agreement, labeling it a “disaster” and withdrawing from it in 2018, describing it as “a terrible one-sided deal that should have never been made.”
Several years later, Iran announced that if the United States would not comply with the previous agreement, it would not either. It commenced enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels, placing it mere days or weeks away from possessing the fuel necessary for six or more nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iranian scientists were pursuing a “quicker and rudimentary” method for converting that fuel into a weapon.
Mr. Witkoff’s remarks did not last long. On Tuesday morning, Mr. Trump and his senior national security advisors, including Mr. Witkoff, were convened in the Situation Room to deliberate Iran policy, an assembly first reported by Axios. By mid-morning, Mr. Witkoff had posted on social media that “Iran must cease and dismantle its nuclear enrichment and weaponization programs,” a statement he had not used the previous evening.
“A deal with Iran will only be realized if it is a Trump deal,” he emphasized. Later that day at a news briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt mentioned that Mr. Trump had conveyed to the Omani mediators of the Iran discussions “the necessity for Iran to terminate its nuclear program through negotiations.” Negotiations are set to continue on Saturday.
Indeed, Mr. Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance have internally argued that insisting on complete dismantlement could jeopardize the negotiations, as suggested by officials familiar with the ongoing discourse who requested anonymity to speak freely about private conversations. The Iranians have already stated that they will not relinquish their entire nuclear program — and thus their option to rapidly pursue a bomb. Instead, both have asserted that the administration should aim for a stringent verification system — potentially led by the United States, rather than the International Atomic Energy Agency — to ensure compliance.
But this reminds one of an Obama-era compromise.
Mr. Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio maintain their long-standing hardline stance, convinced that Iran must not be permitted to retain the capability to enrich nuclear fuel. Otherwise, they warn, it could repeat its recent actions of escalating enrichment to near-bomb-grade levels.
“I believe eliminating Iran’s capacity is unrealistic,” stated Gary Samore, who dealt extensively with the Iranian issue as the top White House nuclear official during the Clinton and Obama administrations. “I do not expect Iran will consent to eliminate its whole program, even under the threat of military action.”
Meanwhile, the Iranians are weighing their options. During a speech on Tuesday in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation’s supreme leader, informed senior government officials that an agreement “may or may not materialize; we are neither overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic.”
He added: “Naturally, we are quite skeptical concerning the other side.”
Mr. Samore, who is currently the director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University, expressed his support for any agreement that would “reset the nuclear clock.”
“All the strategies employed thus far — sabotage, sanctions, diplomacy — have been aimed at buying time. I don’t believe that Trump desires to engage in military conflict,” he remarked, “and the Iranians are also not keen on war. This indicates potential for a compromise.”
Farnaz Fassihi contributed reporting from New York.
