Trump Pursues Negotiated Deal with Iran Amidst Growing Regional Tensions

President Trump is seeking a negotiated deal with Iran focused on limiting its missile capabilities and regional military support, contrasting with hawkish calls for direct strikes. The Iranian response has been largely negative, rejecting negotiations as deceptive. Recent regional conflicts could provide a platform for talks, but experts express skepticism regarding the effectiveness of Trump’s negotiation style against Iran’s strategic objectives.

United States President Donald Trump is pursuing a negotiated agreement with Iran to limit its ballistic missile program and curb its support for regional proxies, seeking alternatives to direct military strikes favored by certain factions. After a significant shift in his foreign policy approach, Trump’s outreach to Iran comes seven years after the “maximum pressure” strategy that involved heavy sanctions and military actions against the Islamic Republic. Recently, Tehran rejected Trump’s invitation for dialogue, labeling it deceptive.

Recent developments in the region, such as the conflict involving Hamas and US airstrikes on Iranian allies in Yemen, raised the possibility of renewed talks. Political expert Professor Mohsen Milani notes that US assessments suggest that Iran’s position has weakened, potentially aligning with efforts for regime change. He stated, “The conventional wisdom in Washington and in London today is that Iran has become a weakened, wounded state, and therefore the conclusion is that we need to finish the job.”

Professor Milani outlined envisioned US objectives including the dismantling of Iranian missile capabilities and curtailing support for non-state actors. However, he warns that Iran is unlikely to concede to such demands, as compliance would undermine its position drastically: “If Iran agrees to all of this, then they might as well raise a white flag.”

Trump’s earlier withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which aimed to halt Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for easing sanctions, plays into the current dynamics. Critics, including Trump himself, argue that the previous agreement allowed Tehran to expand its proxy networks in the region. Milani highlighted significant power shifts in the Middle East since Trump’s previous tenure, particularly with diminished Iranian influence following the ongoing conflict in Syria.

Changes in Iran’s diplomatic relations with Gulf states could also influence negotiations, yet concerns remain about Trump’s negotiation style. Former British intelligence head John Sawers expressed skepticism over the effectiveness of Trump’s blunt approach against the sophisticated Iranian negotiation style, suggesting that achieving fruitful dialogue may be challenging.

Despite these challenges, a mutual interest in lowering oil prices could serve as a platform for discussion, as lifting sanctions might reintegrate Iranian oil into global markets. However, the looming threat of military action complicates Iran’s position, leaving it with limited options. Milani cautions that Iran could dangerously attempt to balance negotiations with nuclear weapons aspirations, stating, “If Iran does go down the route of weaponisation, the Mossad is sufficiently sophisticated and penetrative of the Iranian system that they will know about it, and then that would be the trigger for a military strike.”

In summary, President Trump’s pivot towards a negotiated deal with Iran aims to address crucial defense concerns without resorting to military actions. However, the Iranian government’s rejection of dialogue and the complicated regional dynamics pose significant challenges. Experts highlight the delicate balance Iran faces between pursuing nuclear ambitions and potential negotiations, indicating that the outcomes of these interactions could have profound implications for regional stability and US-Iran relations. The possibility of US airstrikes adds an urgent dimension to the evolving diplomatic landscape.

Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com