Follow us on social

google cta
Donald Trump Iran

With Iran talks, Trump could achieve a triple win

Steve Witkoff met with Tehran's foreign minister directly. Already, this White House has achieved more than what Biden's did in four years.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Donald Trump’s first diplomatic encounter with Tehran could not have gone any better. Both sides described the talks held in Oman as positive and constructive. But the true sign of their success was that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, agreed to speak directly to Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff.

During Biden’s four years, the Iranians never once agreed to meet directly with U.S. officials at the foreign ministry level. Trump now has the opportunity to secure a “better deal” by going for a triple win.

Trump has repeatedly declared that his only red line is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but it has remained unclear whether Trump would seek to achieve that through the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program a la Libya, which has been the Israeli position, or seek a verification-based solution that limits rather than eliminates the nuclear program.

The problem with the “Libya model,” of course, is that Iran would never accept such a capitulation, which is precisely why Israel has pushed this line. They calculate that such demands guarantee the failure of diplomacy and force Trump to shift towards military action.

But Witkoff never mentioned dismantlement during Saturday’s talks. The two sides discussed instead degrees of limitations to the program and the sanctions relief Trump was willing to offer in return.

While dismantlement sounds stronger and tougher, it is unfeasible, whereas a verification-based model not only works, Tehran has already agreed to one before and can agree to it again. The challenge is that Iran’s nuclear program has advanced dramatically over the course of the past few years, and getting it back to where it was in 2015 will be a daunting task.

But Trump is better positioned to reverse these gains precisely because he is willing to offer primary sanctions relief to Tehran— i.e., sanctions that have prevented American companies from trading with Iran. Obama never contemplated touching America’s vast array of primary sanctions on Iran out of fear that it would generate even stronger Republican opposition to the deal. Secondly, he wanted the deal to be strictly nuclear.

Throwing primary sanctions relief into the mix would make him susceptible to (false) accusations of trading nuclear security for American corporate gain.

Biden, on the other hand, was according to his Iran envoy, Rob Malley, “lukewarm” to a deal and fixated on the domestic political costs of offering sanctions relief instead of focusing on what the nuclear gains proper sanctions could secure.

Trump is different. He tends to view sanctions as punishing American companies and appears eager to lift them in order to allow American companies back into Iran.

Given how far Iran’s nuclear program has progressed, it may prove that Trump’s willingness to lift primary sanctions is exactly why Trump has a chance to turn the nuclear clock back to 2016. He can go for a more-for-more model compared to what Obama secured and what Biden failed to achieve precisely because he’s willing to put more on the table.

Pursuing this verification-based model with nuclear weapons as his only red line enables Trump to secure a triple-win for the U.S.: Preventing an Iranian bomb, preventing war with Iran, while providing major business opportunities for American businesses, which will create more jobs in the U.S.

In fact, sanctions on Iran have cost the U.S. economy a tremendous amount. A 2014 study conducted by Jonathan Leslie, Reza Marashi, and myself revealed that between 1995 and 2012, U.S. sanctions had cost the American economy between $135 billion and $175 billion in potential export revenue to Iran.

This also amounted to a tremendous amount of lost job opportunities in the U.S.: “On average, the lost export revenues translate into between 50,000 and 66,000 lost job opportunities each year. In 2008, the number reaches as high as 279,000 lost job opportunities.”

If Trump sticks to a strategy that prioritizes the nuclear issue rather than Iran’s ballistic missiles or relations with groups such as Hezbollah or the Houthis, that pursues a verification-based deal rather than Libya-style dismantlement, and uses primary sanctions relief to push back Iran’s nuclear program while opening up its economy to American companies, then he will score a triple win for America.

Now, that would be a better deal.


Top photo credit: A staged photograph shows the Persian translated book, Fire and Fury: A Look Inside the Trump White House, written by Michael Wolff, featuring a portrait of U.S. President Donald Trump on its cover at a bookstore in downtown Tehran, Iran, on April 12, 2025, during 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, the capital of Oman, on April 12. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.