As U.S.-Iran talks continue, new polling finds that nearly two-thirds of Republicans support a negotiated deal on Iran’s nuclear program over military action intended to destroy it.
Indeed, polling published by the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program and conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus from May 2 through 5, surveying over 1,000 respondents over 18, showed that a majority of Americans, 69% — including 64% percent of Republicans — view a negotiated agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program, with monitoring, as the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
In contrast, 14% of respondents, including 24% of Republicans, preferred the U.S. take military action to inhibit or destroy Iran’s nuclear program. At 78%, Democrats remained more likely to support a negotiated deal over military action overall.
Asked about the prospects of Israel or Iran having nuclear weapons, further, a majority of respondents (70%) responded that neither country having such weapons would ultimately be the “least dangerous” for stability of the Middle East region. Israel is widely believed to have 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads, though its government (and the U.S. government) neither confirms nor denies its nuclear weapons program. Some observers have estimated Israel’s arsenal as much higher, closer to 400 warheads.
The polling comes amid continued U.S.-Iran talks, which have proceeded despite their challenges. Indeed, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei deemed the last round of negotiations “difficult,” yet “useful to better understand each other’s positions and to find reasonable & realistic ways to address the differences,” in an X post yesterday.
Trump’s foreign policy envoy Steve Witkoff also affirmed a policy of negotiated settlement over Iran’s nuclear program in an interview with Breitbart last week. But as noted in a piece by Sina Toossi on RS today, however, Witkoff shared one thing in common with the Iranians — that “no enrichment” is a red line, for the Americans who don’t want any enrichment, and for the Iranians, who say they must have it for their civilian nuclear program.
Stavroula Pabst is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft.
Top image credit: An Iranian visitor visits the former U.S. embassy in downtown Tehran, Iran, on April 12, 2025, on the day of the Iran-U.S. nuclear discussions. According to Iranian officials, indirect nuclear discussions between Iran and the United States begin in Muscat, Oman, on April 12. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)NO USE FRANCE
Top photo credit: NORFOLK, Va. (Apr. 15, 2008) Navy Capt. Patricia Cole, director of the Tailored Maritime Operations Center (T-MOC) at the Naval Network Warfare Command, inspects fellow officers during a command-wide bi-annual uniform inspection. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Corey Lewis File# 080415-N-2147L-001
On April 30, new Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Stuart Scheller, a former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, announced his intent to push for military reform, echoing the frustrations that led to his 2021 court-martial for publicly criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal.
His call for accountability resonates with my decades-long work as an advocate for transforming the broken U.S. military personnel and leadership systems and addressing the deep-rooted issues in military culture. These would include bloated bureaucracies, careerism, a lack of ethical leadership, and fossilized military doctrine — all which Scheller’s remarks brought into sharp focus.
I see Scheller’s appointment as a unique opportunity for change, but there is a lot of work to do.
A broken system
The U.S. military’s personnel system fosters a leadership culture that often serves the military-industrial complex’s interests over national security.
The “up or out” promotion model incentivizes officers to prioritize career advancement over mission success, rewarding those who avoid controversy and align with the status quo. This dynamic aligns with defense contractors’ desires for perpetual overseas operations, as prolonged conflicts drive demand for weapons, logistics, and services.
For example, the Pentagon’s reliance on costly, high-tech systems — like the $10 billion Littoral Combat Ship program, plagued by design flaws — reflects a preference for feeding contractor profits over delivering practical warfighting tools.
Similarly, the 20-year Afghanistan campaign, costing $2 trillion, enriched defense firms while strategic missteps prolonged the conflict, exposing troops to unnecessary risks. This culture not only fuels endless wars but also sidelines innovative leaders who challenge wasteful or escalatory policies, leaving servicemembers to bear the human cost.
A reformed military would prioritize mission success and troop safety over bureaucratic inertia and contractor interests. By fostering ethical, merit-based leadership and streamlining operations, the system could avoid reckless engagements and ensure servicemembers are deployed only when necessary.
My reform strategies — tested at West Point, Fort Benning, and with allies like Ukraine — offer a path forward, emphasizing four pillars: ethics, merit, transparency, and efficiency.
Ethics: Fostering moral courage
Adopting Mission Command, a decentralized leadership philosophy, empowers junior leaders to make decisions aligned with clear objectives, fostering moral courage over blind obedience.
Unlike the current zero-defects culture, which punished Scheller’s principled dissent, Mission Command would encourage leaders to prioritize duty and troop welfare, reducing reckless deployments driven by careerist or contractor pressures. For instance, ethical leaders could have questioned the prolonged Afghanistan presence, sparing lives lost in later years.
The U.S. Army War College study by Dr. Leonard Wong and Dr. Stephen J. Gerras, titled "Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession", published in 2015, examines systemic dishonesty within the U.S. Army. The study argues that the overwhelming number of administrative and training requirements imposed on officers makes it impossible to fully comply, leading to routine misrepresentation or "ethical fading."
Merit: Rewarding competence
Replacing the “up or out” system, emplaced in 1917 by the Navy, then by DoD in 1947, with a flatter, merit-based structure would promote leaders based on real-world skills — adaptability, critical thinking, and tactical innovation — rather than time served or connections. This would retain talent and ensure leaders prioritize mission success over appeasing defense contractors or chasing promotions.
Competent leaders who move up though this process are less likely to endorse unnecessary operations that endanger troops.
Transparency: Building trust
Opaque promotion and assignment processes breed distrust, as soldiers see favoritism at play. Clear, open criteria for advancement, tied to mission-relevant metrics, would rebuild confidence. Transparent assessments of force effectiveness could expose strategic errors — like those in Iraq or Afghanistan — before they escalate, preventing servicemembers from being sent into poorly planned conflicts fueled by external interests.
The 2001 Commandant of the Marine Corps Trust Study emphasized building trust through decentralized decision-making, mission command, and strong leadership ethics. If implemented in the DoD today, it could enhance operational efficiency by empowering lower-level commanders to make rapid, informed decisions, fostering agility in complex battlefields. It would strengthen unit cohesion and morale by prioritizing trust-centric leadership, aligning with modern warfare's demand for adaptability.
Additionally, it could improve public trust in the military by reinforcing ethical standards and transparency, addressing recent declines in confidence (e.g., 45% public trust in 2021 per Reagan Institute Foundation). This approach could also bolster recruitment and retention by cultivating a culture of accountability and professionalism.
Trimming ranks and headquarters
The most recent study addressing negative officer and headquarters bloat in the Department of Defense is the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces: Background and Considerations for Congress [R44389], updated on March 8, 2024.
This report highlights the increase in senior officer billets (3- and 4-star ranks) relative to total force size, noting that in 2023, there were 169 such billets compared to 155 during the Vietnam era, despite a significantly smaller force.
It cites concerns from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) about the risk of creating a "military force of bureaucrats rather than warriors" and references historical warnings, such as General John Sheehan's 1998 statement about the dangers of an overly bureaucratic military staff. The report also discusses inefficiencies, such as excessive staff layers (up to 30 in some cases), which hinder decision-making and operational effectiveness.
Additionally, a 2023 article from the Epoch Times titled Top-Heavy, Bloated Command Structure Hurts US Military Effectiveness, Costs Billions (published September 26, 2023) draws on similar themes, referencing a 2017 Joint Force Quarterly study on "rank creep." It notes that the current 900 admirals and generals (including 41 four-stars) command a much smaller force than during World War II, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs without enhancing mission success.
The bloated officer corps and sprawling headquarters divert resources from combat units, slowing decisions and insulating leaders from frontline realities. Reducing general officer positions and headquarters staff, as suggested in the April 30, 2025, DoD memo, would empower frontline leaders and focus resources on troop readiness. A leaner structure would deter unnecessary overseas commitments, ensuring service members are deployed only for clear, achievable objectives.
The opportunity
The military’s failures stem from a personnel system that fuels careerism, indulges the military-industrial complex, and endangers troops. Historical missteps in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan underscore the cost of this dysfunction.
With a new DoD leadership and public support for reform, the April 30, 2025, memo’s call to cut waste and prioritize effectiveness aligns with this blueprint. By dismantling the industrial-age personnel system, the Pentagon can create a military that values ethics, rewards merit, ensures transparency, and eliminates bloat — reducing the impulse to engage in endless wars and protecting servicemembers from needless harm.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: TIRANA, ALBANIA - MAY 16: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz speak during a Ukraine security meeting at the 6th European Political Community summit on May 16, 2025 at Skanderbeg Square in Tirana, Albania. Leon Neal/Pool via REUTERS
In a dangerous echo of past miscalculations, the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — are once again escalating tensions with Iran, this time by threatening to trigger the reinstatement of U.N. Security Council sanctions (the so-called “snapback”) if U.S.-Iran nuclear talks collapse.
The E3 sees such a step as deploying leverage to force concessions from Iran on its nuclear program. However, it risks derailing diplomacy entirely and plunging the Middle East into deeper crisis.
Leading this charge is France, reprising its role as the E3’s most hawkish voice, reminiscent of its hard line in the JCPOA negotiations in 2015. At a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting on proliferation at the end of April, French Foreign Minister Jean Noël Barrot exemplified this combative turn, saying that if the U.S. – Iran talks do not bear fruit, France and its European partners “will not hesitate for a second to reimpose all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago.”
Weeks later, after Iranian dissident director Jafar Panahi received a Cannes Film Festival award, Barrot hailed the accolade as a symbol of “resistance to the Iranian regime’s oppression.” While there is nothing wrong with praising the victory of an Iranian director, the politicized framing and the timing — amid delicate nuclear talks — was diplomatically inept, needlessly antagonizing Tehran.
Such rhetoric aligns with France’s and other European countries’ broader patterns of conflating Iran’s domestic policies with its nuclear obligations, an approach that only hardens Tehran’s stance. Little surprise, then, that Barrot’s remarks were received poorly in Tehran, with the French envoy summoned to the ministry of foreign affairs, and Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lashing out at France’s perceived hypocrisy on human rights.
But France is not alone. Britain’s influential and outspoken ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, appeared to side with those in Washington who demand an end to any domestic uranium enrichment in Iran — the thickest of Iran’s red lines and the main bone of contention in the ongoing talks with the U.S. These suggestions were met with an immediate reaction from Tehran, with Araghchi warning about an end to any negotiations with E3 if “zero enrichment” was indeed to become the official European position.
In a remarkable about-face, the E3, which in early 2000s spearheaded the process that eventually led to the JCPOA, are now increasingly aligning with the Washington hawks, who, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, opposed the JCPOA from the outset. In fact, there seems to be two competing tracks in motion right now: one is the Trump-Witkoff track that appears to be a genuine effort to strike a deal with Tehran, to the extent of President Trump openly admitting that he warned Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against any steps that might derail a deal. And the other track is led by Rubio and the E3 privileging coercion over diplomacy. Since the U.S. can no longer invoke the snapback as it’s not a part of the JCPOA, Rubio is encouraging the E3 to do just that.
In that context, Barrot’s assertion that “there is no military solution to Iran’s nuclear program, but the path of diplomacy is narrow,” sounds disingenuous. It aligns with the views expressed by the former Biden top Middle East official Brett McGurk who pushed for “deadlines” for diplomatic negotiations, backed up by perennial “credible military threat.”
Yet history shows that pressure only causes Tehran to dig in, not fold. Objectively, there is also no reason for that: yes, Iran’s enrichment levels reached 60% which is far beyond the 3.67% permissible under JCPOA. But Tehran also consistently signaled that it is open to negotiate “everything” provided that its domestic enrichment rights are respected. That leaves ample space to negotiate the technical details, such as the caps on the enrichment, sunset provisions, the fate of the stockpiles of the enriched uranium, and verification.
During the Tehran Dialogue Forum, which I attended last week, many ideas in that regard were floating around. One informal — not coming from an official source — suggested a temporary suspension of enrichment as a confidence-building measure, with the stockpiles exported to Russia once the enrichment is renewed. The idea of a regional enrichment consortium — provided Iran’s enrichment rights are safeguarded — is gaining ground
Iranian officials also privately hinted at the possibility of pausing some of their advanced centrifuges. And while Tehran opposes perpetual restrictions on certain aspects of its nuclear program in principle, negotiating a renewal of sunset provisions for another 5 or 10 years should not be impossible. It would allow Trump to claim a superior deal over the one negotiated by Obama. As far as verification is concerned, Iran has signaled, in an important shift, that it is open to admitting American inspectors to its nuclear sites within the IAEA inspections.
These dynamics show that there is a space for diplomacy. The hawks’ and E3 insistence on artificial deadlines is unjustified — complex issues between two longtime adversaries cannot be resolved in a few meetings in Muscat and Rome. Building trust requires time. But what seems to matter to the E3 the most is not the resolution of the nuclear stand-off but using its leverage as an end in itself. “Use it or lose it” seems to be the new mantra in Paris, London and Berlin.
What explains that course is the E3’s apparent desire to punish Iran for issues unrelated to the nuclear file, such as its military ties with Russia or domestic human rights abuses.
These concerns are valid. Europe sees Russia’s war in Ukraine as an existential threat. Seen through this lens, Europeans hold a dim view of Iran. Amplifying the negative perceptions are issues related to alleged activities of Iranian intelligence services on the European soil and arrests of European citizens in Iran on apparently spurious grounds, which the EU sees as hostage-taking.
However grave and legitimate these grievances, merging them with nuclear diplomacy is a recipe for failure. The JCPOA was never intended to address all problems with Iran; it was a narrowly crafted nonproliferation agreement. Holding the nuclear deal hostage to extraneous demands guarantees its collapse — and with it, any hope of containing Iran’s nuclear program or its other policies the E3/EU finds objectionable, such as military ties with Russia.
Tehran has warned of “severe consequences” if the E3 invokes the snapback. Top among these could be withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a scenario that would eliminate international oversight of Iran’s program. The current moderate government would be weakened — and it already faces criticisms from hardliners for supposedly being too quick to frontload Iran’s concessions, such as a readiness to temporarily go back to the JCPOA-levels of enrichment. In a déjà vu following the demise of the JCPOA at the tail end of the pragmatic Rouhani presidency (2017-2021), hardliners could reassert themselves again, ironically exacerbating every policy the E3 dislikes — accelerated enrichment, deepened ties with Russia, and tightening the screws domestically.
This is why the E3’s threat of snapback is not just irrational — it is self-defeating. Europe, already grappling with the Ukraine war, can ill afford another avoidable crisis. If the E3 can’t help with the U.S.–Iran talks, it should, at least, refrain from actively undermining them.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Volodymyr Zelensky (Shutterstock/Dmytro Larin)
Ukraine is already asking for more money to continue fighting into 2026, a sure sign that President Volodmyr Zelensky has no plans to end the war.
With the battlefield continuing to favor Russia, European leaders have their collective heads in the sand on who will pay. How long before President Trump walks away?
At the G7 Finance and Central Bank governors’ meeting in Banff on May 21, Ukraine’s Finance Minister Sergii Marchenko sought financial support for 2026, “including the provision of support to the Ukrainian army through its integration into the European security system,” according to reports.
I have said before that Ukraine cannot keep fighting into 2026 without a significant injection of European money. Even if the war were to stop tomorrow, Ukraine would still face a huge funding black hole. And that prolonging the war simply extends Ukraine’s indebtedness and delinquency, nudging it every closer towards the status of a failed state.
Making light of the price tag, German-based Kiel Institute has suggested extra EU support to Ukraine’s army would only need to cost an extra 0.2% of GDP or $43.3 billion per year. This assumes no additional U.S. funding under President Trump and is a figure practically identical to the $41.5 billion figure I forecast two months ago.
The Ukrainian side pointed out two assumptions that underpin their request — first, that funding Ukraine’s military supports macro-financial stability in that country. That is untrue. By far the leading cause of the increased financial distress of Ukraine is its vast and unsustainable prosecution of a war that it cannot win. As I have said before, ending the war would allow for immediate reductions to be made to military spending, which accounts for 65% of total government expenditure.
Second, that paying for Ukraine’s military is keeping Europe safer. It isn’t. The best route to European security would be to end the war tomorrow. The risk of escalation only grows for the longer the war continues and President Zelensky resorts to increasingly desperate tactics as the battlefield realities turn against him.
This latest request for money is a clear signal that Zelensky is not serious about U.S. demands for peace, and would prefer to continue the fight, drawing directly upon European funds. It has long been clear to me that Zelensky is evading peace because it would bring his presidency to a close, not to mention elevate risks to his personal safety.
He has therefore been piling on more pressure for Western leaders to impose more sanctions and other measures, which will only serve to prolong the war. Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent brain wave that the U.S. impose 500% secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Russia is a classic example. No doubt other countries, China in particular, would respond negatively to this, as it has already to the launch of Trump’s tariff war. It would kill President Trump’s efforts at engagement with Russia, by boxing him in to Beltway demands in an identical rerun of his first presidency, making him appear toothless in the eyes of Putin.
But these are not the real points. Having suffered over 20,000 sanctions already since 2014 yet maintaining a stable, growing economy, what makes people believe that Russia will back down to even more sanctions now?
The war continues to favor Russia on the battlefield. In recent days, in addition to expanding territory in the south of Donetsk, the Russian army has made major gains in the pocket around now-occupied Toretsk. Progress, as always, is slow and grinding as it has been since the start of 2024. Ukraine has undoubtedly mounted a formidable defence of its territory, for which its fighters deserve great credit.
But Russia has never fully mobilized the country for the fight in Ukraine, for various domestic political reasons. Putin also wants to maintain relations with developing country partners and a more devastating military offensive against Ukraine would make that harder.
Pumping more billions into Ukraine’s army will merely slow the speed of defeat. Even the Ukrainians now accept that they cannot reclaim lost territory by force. Ending the war would at least draw a line in the sand for future negotiations.
For their part, Europe simply can’t afford to pump another $40 billion per year into Ukraine’s army, at a time when member states are trying to boost their own militaries, revive their flagging economies and deal with an upsurge in nationalist political parties that want to end the war.
An April pledge for extra military donations in 2025 elicited just $2.5 billion per year from Germany, and reconfirmed the £6 billion from the UK already committed, without pledging new funds. Keir Starmer’s government is in the process of making an embarrassing U-turn on previously agreed cuts to winter fuel payments for pensioners.
I seriously doubt that British people would consider another big increase in funds for Ukraine’s war would be a sensible investment if peace was on the table. That this isn’t actively discussed in Britain, in a way that it is in the United States, is driven by the complete lockdown of debate in the UK and European mainstream media.
Right from the beginning, the war in Ukraine has been an attritional battle of who can sustain the fight for the longest period of time. A longer war will always favor Russia because the economic liability Europe faces will ratchet up to the point where it becomes politically unsustainable. We make the assumption that Russia’s aims in Ukraine are to prevent NATO expansion and to protect the rights of native Russian speakers in that country, and of course, on the surface, they are.
But on the current track, Putin gets the added benefit of watching the European Union project slowly implode, without the need to go all in on Ukraine.
President Trump for his part continues to walk a fine line that involves criticizing both Putin and Zelensky for the continuance of the war. In the face of intransigence on all sides, I wonder how long it will be before he washes his hands of the mess and walks away.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.