Follow us on social

Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump

Why Trump can do what Biden couldn't on Iran

Nuclear talks will begin this weekend and the president is apparently willing to deal

Analysis | QiOSK

Recent news that high level Trump administration officials — including special envoy Steve Witkoff — will meet either indirectly or directly with their Iranian counterparts, including Iran’s foreign minister, this coming weekend in Oman is quite remarkable, particularly given that the Biden administration never managed to get this far in four years.

Many in Washington will conclude that Trump succeeded in getting these negotiations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program started because he orchestrated a credible military threat against Iran. Indeed, that is a factor.

But a far more important factor is the other side of the equation: Tehran appears to believe that Trump really wants a deal and that he's willing and capable to offer serious sanctions relief to get it.

That upside never existed with Biden. Lifting sanctions on Iran was just too painful for the former president. And even the limited sanctions relief Biden was willing to offer, he could not make sustainable.

In that sense, Trump is very different. He doesn't treat diplomacy with America's detractors as a costly endeavor, nor is he a fan of sanctions that punish American companies.

So the promise for Iran is far greater with Trump than it was with Biden. And Tehran is apparently willing to offer concessions to secure that upside. Which is the main (but not the only) reason as to why things are moving so fast now.

As far as the substance of the talks goes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week pushing for the so-called “Libya model” — or a complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

But if Trump seeks to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program Libya-style, in addition to closing down Iran's missile program and Tehran's relations with its regional partners, then diplomacy will most likely be dead on arrival.

This strategy has been favored by proponents of war with Iran precisely because they know it will fail.

If Trump's strategy is centered on achieving a verification-based deal that prevents an Iranian bomb — his only red line — then there is reason to be optimistic about upcoming talks.

But beyond the substance of Netanyahu’s proposal, Trump would be foolish to take his advice on Iran diplomacy, given the fact that this accused war criminal has — for more than 20 years now — sought to prevent and sabotage talks in order to trap the U.S. into a forever war with Iran.

Instead, Trump should listen to those — including many of his own prominent supporters like conservative media personality Tucker Carlson — who know that a U.S.-Iran war would have destructive consequences for America. Following Netanyahu and others who share his views down the path to war with Iran is a great way to ensure that U.S. foreign policy puts Americans' best interests last.


Top image credit: White House
Analysis | QiOSK
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

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?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.