Follow us on social

google cta
Trump Musk

Can Trump seal a deal with Iran?

Elon Musk's secret meeting with Iranian officials to defuse tensions could be a start, if the hawks and neocons don't get in the way

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Maybe Donald Trump really will be an anti-war president in his second term.

Trump donor and adviser Elon Musk reportedly meeting Iranian officials with the aim of defusing tensions could be a sign that the once and future president may truly buck the neocons and interventionists who have dogged Republican and Democratic efforts to engage Iran and kept the U.S. bogged down in conflicts in the Middle East for a generation. However, the efforts to stop such diplomacy from happening will be fierce.

Despite his hardline reputation and actions in imposing "maximum pressure" sanctions, exchanging strikes and threatening to blow up Iranian cultural sites, and tearing up the 2015 Iran deal — Trump has often been an outlier from the typical Republican hawkish line on Iran.

In 2015, when candidates vying for the GOP nomination were falling over themselves to denounce and pledge to "tear up" the Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration, Trump said he would not tear up the deal but rather enforce it harshly, claiming his opponents didn't understand how the world actually works. When he finally came around to promising to tear it up, one of his main critiques was that America couldn't benefit financially from it unlike other parties to the deal — which, of course, is due to the U.S.'s own self-imposed "sanctions wall" on Iran.

When Trump made good on this promise and pulled out of the nuclear deal in 2018 — an approach his GOP opponents had endorsed but likely wouldn't have actually implemented — it sowed the seeds of disaster. Trump's surrounding himself with war hawks and neocons didn't help. He allowed the same political influences that limited Obama's ability to lift sanctions so America could benefit from the original nuclear deal; that ensured Biden would never rejoin that agreement and kept America embroiled in conflict after conflict with Tehran.

Key Trump advisers like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, and Elliott Abrams worked assiduously to prevent Trump from pursuing serious diplomatic options on Iran and delivering a "better deal." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has always worked to prevent anything close to U.S.-Iran rapprochement, bragged that it was he who manipulated Trump to abandon the agreement and shift to “maximum pressure.”

Yet to hear Trump tell it, he would have had an Iran deal with just one more week in office. He even said he told Biden's team to quickly seal an agreement with Iran because he "handed (the Biden administration) a country that was ready for a deal" but that they didn't know how to do it. Now, Trump will get another chance.

While Musk’s talks with Iranian officials are potentially important and could be a sign that major conflict can be avoided, progress will not come easy. Trump's concept of "deal making" heavily relies on the notion that the other side must be softened up in order to get the best deal from a "position of strength." But in his first term, the sanctions on Iran and provocative actions like the Soleimani assassination had the opposite effect and hardened Iran's position by sidelining those in Tehran interested in and capable of striking a bargain with Washington.

In Trump’s first term, French President Emmanuel Macron tried to get Iran’s president to agree to a direct meeting with Trump. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tried to get then-Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to come to the White House. But those efforts were ultimately rebuffed, likely by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself, because hardliners did not want to reward Trump with a "photo op" after engaging in a series of escalations, with little assurance of any benefit for them.

Despite the chaos of his first term, Trump says he still wants a deal. In September 2024, Trump was asked if he would seek diplomacy with Iran in light of allegations that Iran wanted to assassinate him. “Yes, I would do that," he said. "We have to make a deal, because the consequences are impossible. We have to make a deal."

Trump also spoke against sanctions and said he wanted to lift them, and bluntly rejected the idea that he should pursue U.S.-led regime change in Iran. "We can't even run ourselves," he said in dismissing the notion.

Trump’s instinct to negotiate is likely to run headlong into his elevation of hawkish advisers who don’t believe in negotiations. When Trump talks about the value of having John Bolton-types in the room to "scare" the other side, and then surrounds himself with hardliners like Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio and hawks like national security adviser-designate Michael Waltz and Defense Secretary-designate Peter Hesgeth, it signals he may not have learned from his self-acknowledged "biggest mistake" of "picking some people I shouldn't have picked" to serve in his previous administration.

And it takes two to tango. Iran does have a reformist-minded president who campaigned on lifting sanctions and restoring the 2015 agreement, and who brought back pro-engagement diplomats to achieve that outcome. Their initial reactions to Trump appear to be open to negotiation, but guarded, emphasizing that Iran will react harshly to any escalation of pressure.

Also notable is Iran’s reported pledge in writing that it will not retaliate against Trump following threats issued after Soleimani’s assassination in 2020, and public dismissals of allegations that Iran has engaged in such plotting as fictitious.

Ultimately, however, the Supreme Leader — always cautious about engagement and eager to avoid any possible blowback from negotiations — will make the final call over whether and how to negotiate. In Trump’s first term, he was not open to talks. Now, that may change.

If Iran is serious about preventing war and pursuing diplomacy, it must be willing to test if Trump can actually deliver where others could not. Meeting with Trump's apparent emissary Elon Musk within just a week of the election suggests it could be ready to do just that.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Top image credit: Nov 16, 2024; New York, NY, USA; President-elect Donald Trump talks with Elon Musk (right) during UFC 309 at Madison Square Garden. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-Imagn Images TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Bart De Wever
Top image credit: Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever holds a press conference after a summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union (18-19 December), in Brussels, on Thursday 18 December 2025. BELGA PHOTO NICOLAS MAETERLINCK via REUTERS CONNECT

EU avoids risky precedent in Ukraine aid deal

Europe

The European Union’s leaders began their crucial summit on Thursday aimed at converging around the Commission’s proposal to use Russian funds frozen in Europe to guarantee a “reparations loan” to Ukraine. In the early hours on Friday, they opted instead to extend a loan of €90 billion backed only by the EU’s own budget. The attempt to leverage the Russian assets opened a breach within the EU that could not be overcome. As the meeting opened, seven members — Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria and Malta — had opposed the proposal. Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the three Baltic countries were its main supporters.

Proponents of the reparations loan — above all Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — argued that approval would make the EU indispensable to any diplomatic settlement of the war in Ukraine. The EU as a whole recognized that Ukraine’s war effort and governmental operations require substantial new financing no later than the first quarter of 2026.

keep readingShow less
090127-f-7383p-001-scaled
MQ-9 Reaper Drone. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

Military contractors reap big profits in war-to-homeland pipeline

Military Industrial Complex

By leveraging the dual-use nature of many of their products, where defense technologies can be integrated into the commercial sector and vice versa, Pentagon contractors like Palantir, Skydio, and General Atomics have gained ground at home for surveillance technologies — especially drones — proliferating war-tested military tech within the domestic sphere.

keep readingShow less
Paradoxically, 'Donroe Doctrine' could put US interests at risk

Paradoxically, 'Donroe Doctrine' could put US interests at risk

Latin America

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) not only spends significantly more space discussing and developing an approach to the Western Hemisphere than any recent administration, but it also elevates the Americas as the primary focus for the administration — a view U.S. Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio iterated shortly prior to his first international trip to Central America.

The NSS lays out a specific vision of how to approach the Americas described as “Enlist and Expand” — by “enlisting regional champions that can help create tolerable stability … [and] expand our network in the region… [while] (through various means) discourag[ing] their collaboration with others.”

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.