Follow us on social

Donald Trump

Report: Incoming Trump officials mulling attack on Iran

This conflicts with other voices, including the incoming vice president, who have urged restraint

Reporting | QiOSK

Senior advisers for President-elect Trump’s transition team are weighing whether to launch military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal.

Although relevant deliberations are in early stages, the Journal reports that Trump’s allies and advisers view that Iran’s weakened state, with its ally Syria out and partners Hamas and Hezbollah critically undermined by Israel, presents a “rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup.”

The development follows previous hawkish statements on Iran from both Trump and some White House picks, including national security adviser designee Mike Waltz's recent comments that the incoming Trump administration would embark on a policy of “maximum pressure" against Iran.

“We have to constrain their cash. We have to constrain their oil. We have to go back to maximum pressure, number one, which was working under the first Trump administration,” Waltz said.

On the campaign trail back in September, Trump said he would threaten to “blow [Iran] to smithereens” if a presidential candidate faced threats from Tehran or another “threatening country.” (American intelligence officials had briefed Trump on alleged Iranian threats to assassinate him).

When asked about the prospects of going to war with Iran during an interview with TIME this week, Trump said “anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation.”

Some incoming Trump officials and associates may believe that attacking Iran may deter its nuclear prospects. But disarmament experts say that striking Iran would likely galvanize it, making it more likely to develop nuclear weapons in response to a military attack.

Iranian officials have repeatedly denied interest in acquiring nuclear weapons Indeed, as Iranian former foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said regarding possible Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities: “We have no decision to produce a nuclear bomb, but if Iran is threatened, we will have to change our nuclear doctrine.” And Javad Zarif, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, “is ready to manage tensions with the United States.”

On one hand, Trump's Iran policy remains pliable as administration positions are finalized and discussions with regional players occur. Meanwhile, some of Trump’s top aides have signaled willingness towards restraint. Back in October, J.D. Vance, now vice president-elect, said “our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran…this is where smart diplomacy really matters.” And Elon Musk, a top Trump confidant, also reportedly met with Iranian diplomats at the U.N. last month in an apparent effort to diffuse tensions.

But many Washington hawks smell an opportunity and are pushing the incoming Trump administration to take a hard line. “I have, for a long time, been willing to call quite unequivocally for regime change in Iran," Sen. Ted Cruz said recently.

Others are hoping that Trump will stick to his instincts on refraining from further involving the U.S. military in more wars, especially in the Middle East and particularly with Iran. “Despite the chaos of his first term, Trump says he still wants a deal,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi recently noted in RS, adding though, that “Trump’s instinct to negotiate is likely to run headlong into his elevation of hawkish advisers who don’t believe in negotiations.”


Top Image Credit: Donald Trump (White House photo)
Reporting | QiOSK
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.