Donald Trump’s oddly sensible move: seeking a deal with Iran
He started his second term vowing to be a peacemaker, to be judged by the wars he ends and the ones “we never get into”. Thus far he has not ended the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. But Donald Trump’s unorthodox ways may yet help avert a looming conflict with Iran. Steve Witkoff, his envoy to everywhere—Russia, Gaza and now Iran—is due to begin talks in Oman with Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, on April 12th. America wants direct talks; Iran says they should be indirect, via the Omanis, at least initially. Whatever the format, the stakes could not be higher.
Iran is closer than ever to developing a nuclear bomb. Israel wants to take military action to stop it—with America if possible, alone if necessary. American b-2 bombers have massed in Diego Garcia; a second aircraft-carrier group has deployed to the Middle East. America is already bombing the Houthis, Iran’s allies in Yemen. If the talks fail, Mr Trump warns, “I think Iran is going to be in great danger.” Any use of force, counters Iran, would lead to a “catastrophic war” that would “quickly extend across the region”. Better, surely, for the old foes to talk.
The Trump administration faces obstacles. Iran distrusts an erratic president who, in his first term, tore up Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, which largely froze Iran’s nuclear-weapons programme in exchange for the lifting of many sanctions. Iran will not unlearn the technology it has mastered since then, and has amassed enough near-bomb-grade uranium for several nuclear devices. Moreover, the international co-operation Mr Obama enjoyed has evaporated amid great-power rivalry.
Still, Mr Trump enjoys advantages, too. The Iranian regime is weaker than in the past. Many Iranians are sick of the oppressive mullahs, and the economy is reeling. The “axis of resistance”, Iran’s network of allies and proxies in the Middle East, has crumbled under an Israeli military onslaught; so have Iran’s own air defences. Congressional Republicans are in thrall to Mr Trump, and will not assail him over Israel as they did Mr Obama and Joe Biden.
The president wants to show he can do better than the jcpoa. But he is in a hurry, setting a two-month deadline for an agreement, partly because the ability to “snap back” the un sanctions lifted under the JCPOA expires in October. A hasty deal may be a bad one. Mr Trump’s national-security team is skeletal, inexperienced and ideologically divided. It seems torn between seeking the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear sites (a tall order) or limiting enrichment with outside verification (a more feasible aim). Mr Trump may seek restraints on Iran’s ballistic missiles and other weapons, and on its support for proxies, both of which will be difficult. As a businessman, he might add an economic dimension, which Iran is encouraging. Arab states, once dismayed by the jcpoa, cheer him on.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, demands a “Libya solution”, the decision by Muammar Qaddafi, to give up his nuclear programme in 2003. He knows the mullahs will not accept it; they recall how Qaddafi was subsequently overthrown and killed. Instead, Israel thinks it has an opportunity to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities, which may even hasten the fall of the regime. Israel has shown in Lebanon that military action can reset politics. But America knows from Iraq and Afghanistan that seemingly easy wars can also lead to disaster.
If the talks collapse, Mr Trump faces bleak choices: risk a nuclear Iran; let Israel bomb Iran; or have America itself lead the strikes to ensure a more thorough job. Like his predecessors, he may opt for a flawed deal—perhaps even a worse one than the jcpoa—that leaves Iran as a latent nuclear power. But that would almost certainly be better than war. For all its fury at Mr Trump’s trade madness, the world should wish him well in dealing with Iran. ■
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.