The Trump administration is currently engaged in its third round of discussions with Iranian diplomats regarding a potential nuclear deal. Leading the negotiations is Michael Anton, a State Department official known for his intelligence and toughness. Anton has previously defended controversial decisions, such as the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Unlike many in Washington, he believes that avoiding endless wars should be a key American goal.
For those watching from abroad, President Donald Trump’s approach to Iran remains unpredictable. It’s unclear whether he will heed the advice of hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton or follow the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who may push for military action against Iran while it is perceived to be in a weaker position. Recently, Trump suggested the idea of launching unprecedented airstrikes against Iran, raising concerns about the potential for war.
Experts agree that any viable deal with Iran would need to include strict monitoring of its nuclear enrichment activities and ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons during the agreement’s duration. This approach is similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated during the Obama administration, which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. The JCPOA faced significant opposition from groups like AIPAC and the Israeli government, but it did establish a framework for dialogue.
While the JCPOA was not perfect from the American perspective—allowing Iran to retain some nuclear capacity—it was seen as the best option at the time. Critics who argue for a more stringent deal often overlook the reality that Iran is unlikely to relinquish its nuclear knowledge entirely. Those advocating for military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may be pushing for a conflict rather than a diplomatic solution.
The potential consequences of a military strike on Iran are uncertain. Previous analyses have suggested that while Israel could inflict significant damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the U.S. military could achieve more substantial results. However, Iran possesses various means of retaliation, including missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region and disrupting oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to a spike in global oil prices and economic turmoil.
As the U.S. considers its options, the prospect of a prolonged conflict looms large. Without a clear strategy for ending hostilities, the U.S. might find itself in a perpetual cycle of airstrikes and retaliatory actions against Iran. This scenario could inadvertently accelerate Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, countering the very goal of military intervention.
Ultimately, the decision rests with Trump, who faces pressure from hawkish allies and advisors. However, there are indications that he may prefer a diplomatic resolution over war. His past interactions with Iranian Americans and his somewhat unconventional views on Israel suggest he might be open to a deal that limits Iran’s nuclear capabilities without completely dismantling its program.
The geopolitical landscape has shifted since Trump first took office. Israel is less threatened than it was before, and Gulf states are now exploring ways to ease tensions with Iran. Public sentiment in the U.S. has also changed, with growing skepticism about military actions in support of Israel. As Trump weighs his options, the stakes are high, and the outcome could define his presidency.