President Trump seeks a negotiated deal with Iran to curb militancy without military action, despite previous aggressive tactics. Recent regional developments may encourage Iran to engage positively, but there remain significant challenges regarding trust and diplomacy. Former officials caution that a combination of negotiations and secret nuclear advancements by Iran could lead to dangerous outcomes.
US President Donald Trump is advocating for a negotiated agreement with Iran aimed at curbing its ballistic missile program and halting its support for regional proxies, as an alternative to military strikes favored by some officials in Washington. Over seven years after his previous ‘maximum pressure’ strategy involving sanctions, Trump seems open to engagement with Iran despite past rejections of dialogue, highlighted by Iran’s recent dismissal of Trump’s invitation to talks as deceitful.
Recent regional events and conflicts, such as the ongoing Hamas-Israel war and the challenges facing the Syrian regime, may provide a new framework for negotiations. These developments have raised hopes that Iran might be amenable to discussions that could also lift the existing US-led embargo, which has severely impacted its economy. Professor Mohsen Milani, an expert on Iranian foreign policy, suggests that Washington may perceive Iran’s position as weakened following these events.
Milani indicated that some Washington officials are pressing for decisive action, which could include military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities or attempts at regime change. He highlighted that there is a prevailing belief in political circles that Iran is currently a vulnerable state, prompting calls for further aggressive policies against it. Despite Trump’s outreach efforts, it is unlikely Iran will compromise significantly on its core interests, as conceding would imply defeat.
During Trump’s previous presidency, he withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and faced criticism for allowing Iran to expand its influence across the region. Milani pointed out key geopolitical shifts since Trump’s exit from the agreement; the fall of allied regimes, like Syria’s, has reduced Tehran’s power. However, Iran’s new diplomatic ventures with Gulf nations position it better for potential negotiations with the US.
Challenges remain in these negotiations, notably Trump’s blunt diplomatic style, which concerns former British intelligence chief John Sawers. This might lead to complications in achieving fruitful discussions with Iran’s astute negotiators. One potential area of compromise could be in the mutual interest of reducing global oil prices by allowing Iranian oil exports back on the market, which could have significant economic implications.
The threat of military action looms, further complicating Iran’s options. Trump’s willingness to consider air strikes could pressure Iran into a precarious situation, where it could pursue negotiations while secretly advancing its nuclear program. Milani warned that a dual pursuit of negotiation and nuclear armament could provoke a severe response from Israel’s intelligence services, leading to significant risks for Iran.
In summary, President Trump’s strategy regarding Iran has shifted towards seeking negotiation rather than military action. Ongoing regional changes and perceived weaknesses of Iran may open paths for dialogue, although significant challenges and risks remain. With Trump’s blunt style potentially clashing with Iran’s diplomatic finesse, effective communication is crucial. The focus on negotiating terms that include lifting economic sanctions presents a complex dynamic that could alter the landscape of US-Iran relations once again.
Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com
