Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Middle East
Merz Macron Starmer Zelensky
Top image credit: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Ukranian President Voloydmyr Zelensky, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk walk in the grounds of the Mariynsky Palace, in Kyiv, Ukraine, May 10, 2025. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Europe's sticks are a little limp

Europe

As the Istanbul peace talks get underway, Europe’s response to the Russia-Ukraine war exposes its profound weakness and reliance on U.S. support, with leaders like France’s Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, and Germany’s Friedrich Merz resorting to bluffs that lack substance.

The European trio, after visiting Kyiv and meeting with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on May 10, issued Russia a 30-day ceasefire ultimatum to begin on May 12, threatening severe sanctions in case of Moscow’s non-compliance. Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed it, offering talks in Istanbul without a truce instead, in line with Russia’s insistence that the “root causes” of the conflict be addressed, including Ukraine’s potential NATO membership.

keep readingShow less
russia holds the cards
Top photo credit: okanakdeniz/shutterstock

Istanbul 2.0: Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em

Europe

The biggest achievement of today’s Istanbul talks is that they are even taking place. U.S. engagement will remain vital to getting a peace deal over the line. Russia’s desire for a reset with Washingtonmay keep them on track.

I have a sense of déjà vu as I contemplate these long-overdue peace talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul. In April 2022, Ukraine and Russia were close to agreeing a peace treaty, less than two months after war started. However, this came crashing down amid claims that western governments, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom encouraged Ukraine to keep fighting.

keep readingShow less
The desperation of Gaza famine denialism
Top photo credit: Dislocated Palestinians wait in line with pots in their hands to receive relief meals from a charity kitchen in Gaza City, on May 3, 2025. (Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto)

The desperation of Gaza famine denialism

Middle East

As the risk of famine spreads across Gaza — and as shocking images of overcrowded soup lines stream from Gaza daily — an influential network of Israeli government defenders has emerged to tell you that none of this is happening at all.

The Free Press — a pro-Israel media outlet often sympathetic to the neoconservative worldview — published a highly circulated article last week from journalist Michael Ames titled, “The Gaza Famine Myth,” which purports to demonstrate that food security in Gaza has been far above the famine and crisis levels that international humanitarian organizations have observed since at least early 2024.

keep readingShow less

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.