Real Clear World Robert Torres RealClearWorld May 21, 2025 Trump Needs To Stay Focused on U.S. Interests With IranOffice of the Iranian Supreme Leader

 Real Clear World

Robert Torres RealClearWorld May 21, 2025

Trump Needs To Stay Focused on U.S. Interests With IranOffice of the Iranian Supreme Leader

The fourth round of nuclear negotiations between U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, rumored to have produced an Iranian proposal for a joint nuclear consortium, has now resulted in an official American proposal.  Following the U.S.’s military campaign against the Houthis, ominous rhetoric from the White House, and President Trump’s economically productive tour of the Middle East, continuing diplomatic talks represent a potential instantiation of American restraint.

Read Full Article »

For a New Iran Deal, Trump Needs To Stay Focused on U.S. Interests

.By Robert Torres

For a New Iran Deal, Trump Needs To Stay Focused on U.S. InterestsOffice of the Iranian Supreme Leader

The fourth round of nuclear negotiations between U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, rumored to have produced an Iranian proposal for a joint nuclear consortium, has now resulted in an official American proposal.  Following the U.S.’s military campaign against the Houthis, ominous rhetoric from the White House, and President Trump’s economically productive tour of the Middle East, continuing diplomatic talks represent a potential instantiation of American restraint.

Under the first Trump administration, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal, alleging that Iran had negotiated in bad faith.  The administration cited Israeli intelligence reports that provided “compelling details” about Iran’s secret efforts to develop nuclear weapons and consequently imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. 

Under a second Trump administration, the U.S. appears committed to a maximalist approach regarding the Iranian nuclear program.  However, messaging from Washington oscillates between complete dismantlement and accepting a more realistic partial dismantlement given Iran’s non-negotiable stance on uranium enrichment.  The confusion may be due to an internal divide within the White House between those who favor restraint and those who favor military intervention. 

President Trump currently favors diplomacy as he reportedly vetoed Israeli proposals for strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.  The proposals ranged from an attack composed of U.S. airstrikes and Israeli raids, to a more extensive U.S.-led bombing campaign.  Nearly all the plans required U.S. support to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation and to ensure the initial attack was even successful.  The danger of a direct U.S. confrontation with Iran is compounded by a recent U.S. military buildup accompanying the approximately 50,000 U.S. troops present in the region.  

Israel has previously attempted to cajole President Bush, President Obama, and President Biden into confrontations with Iran counter to U.S. interests.  Israeli figures remain eager to reshape the region with Lebanon’s Hezbollah degraded, the Syrian Assad regime ousted, and the collapse of the Shia Crescent.  Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz wrote that “Israel must and can attack Iran. We need to recruit the United States and bring about a change in the face of the Middle East." 

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has argued that an Iranian nuclear deal must be in the “Libya-style” with the option to “blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution” in reference to the 2003 nuclear disarmament of Gaddafi’s Libya.  As Gaddafi’s disarmament ultimately resulted in his death and the collapse of the Libyan state, this demand has been rejected and serves to reinforce Iranian motivations for nuclear latency.  Interestingly, President Trump recently dismissed a hawkish Michael Waltz as National Security Advisor due to his alleged “intense coordination” with Netanyahu on military options against Iran. 

Given the U.S.’s unique relationship with Israel, the Trump administration should work to rein in Netanyahu’s hawkish bluster towards Iran.  Herein lies the crossroad – will the U.S. favor restraint or create conditions for war?

A war with Iran presents challenges to the U.S. that are not analogous to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Iraq’s prewar GDP was roughly $59 billion, had a population of over 24 million, and a military with an upper estimate of about 435,000 personnel.  Meanwhile, Iran’s current GDP of about $404 billion dwarfs that of Iraq, Iran has a population of nearly 90 million, and Iran has an estimated 600,000 armed forces personnel with a defense industry that has the capacity to develop, produce, and sustain air, land, and naval weapons programs.  Iran is also nearly four times the size of Iraq in terms of total area and boasts a significantly more diverse terrain.

Although President Trump currently favors restraint, if the U.S. remains steadfast on the poison pill of complete dismantlement then negotiations will fail and the administration may “willingly” strike Iran. 

This outcome is identical to the U.S. executing Israel’s proposed plans for an attack that would only set back Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon by about a year.  A strike likely guarantees that Iran will not just re-nuclearize, but weaponize.  Additionally, a potential multiple theater conflict not just with Iran, who has strategic partnerships with Russia and China, but also with their proxies across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen would be a catastrophic result for the U.S. with no real benefit conferred. 

Rather than being solely wedded to the idea of a deal, the critical policy goal should be avoiding military conflict with Iran.  Additionally, a sober recognition that U.S. and Israeli foreign policy objectives are not identical would serve the Trump administration well.  Israel appears committed to changing the dynamic of the Middle East, even still threatening to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities due to “dissatisfaction” with the ongoing diplomatic efforts and preparing for talks to collapse.

The harsh truth is that this Israeli maneuver presupposes a continued commitment of unconditional and unlimited U.S. assistance, support, and the direct involvement of the U.S.  The U.S. must firmly establish, both privately and publicly, that we have a distinct national interest in not being drawn in to yet another disastrous and unnecessary war in the Middle East.

Robert Torres is a JD candidate at the University of Connecticut School of Law.  He previously earned a BA with honors in Political Science from the University of Connecticut.