Neocons and their allies in Washington, Israel, and beyond are making unrealistic demands about the outcome of U.S. talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear program. But President Trump has absolutely no reason to listen to them and should not take them seriously.
The anti-Iran deal campaign kicked into overdrive last week when Republicans on Capitol Hill sent a letter to the White House calling on Trump to refuse any agreement that doesn’t include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Every Republican senator except Rand Paul signed a letter to President Trump urging the administration to push for an end to Iran’s enrichment capacity,” Andrew Day, senior editor of the American Conservative, told RS. “They know that this demand is unacceptable to the Iranian regime and are clearly hoping to sabotage Trump’s diplomatic efforts.”
Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Sina Toossi called the letter’s demand “a poison pill.”
“Demanding zero enrichment, permanent restrictions, and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — after the U.S. already broke the 2015 deal — is not a negotiating position,” he told RS.
Meanwhile, others deal opponents say that Iran can be allowed to keep its program for civilian energy production purposes with the caveat that it cannot enrich its own uranium.
The good news for Trump though — and those who see an opportunity to box in Iran’s nuclear program and avoid war — is that this anti-Iran deal coalition has no constituency outside Washington and Israel, and Trump will pay very little to no political price if he just ignores them.
Take for instance a recent poll conducted by the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus in conjunction with the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll program. That survey found that a large majority of Americans — 69% — favor “a negotiated agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful ends, with stringent monitoring” as opposed to military action. But perhaps more importantly for Trump’s political fortunes, 64% of Republicans surveyed — i.e. his base — agreed.
Opponents of diplomacy with Iran try to obfuscate this reality and muddy the waters. For example, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies CEO Mark Dubowitz — who’s been pushing for regime change in Iran for nearly two decades — promoted a poll last week finding that “76% of Americans say Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities should be destroyed.”
Of course there is one problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program, and thus no nuclear weapons facilities, a fact that the U.S. intelligence community routinely concludes.
But it’s not just the American people or the GOP base that support Trump making a deal with Iran. Some of the more high profile figures in the MAGA-America First world back him too.
“It’s called sanity,” Steve Bannon said last week, referring to the SSRS/UMaryland poll. Bannon, of course, served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first term and remains influential within his orbit and among his supporters.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who also has clout with Trump’s base, has been very vocal recently against going to war with Iran. "There is no wedge between the base and President Trump,” she said earlier this month. “The wedge is between Congress and the establishment Republicans that are undermining the president's agenda."
And conservative media star Tucker Carlson, who like Bannon, has close ties to Trump world and is influential with the president’s base, has been similarly calling out neocons and others who are trying to kill Trump’s diplomacy with Iran and push for war.
"Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country," he said last month. "Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
Popular right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk has piled on as well. “[T]here are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it'd be easy. Just one strike in and out,” he said recently. “Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case?”
“President Trump has consolidated his power over the Republican Party to a remarkable degree and could certainly sign a good deal with Iran without suffering politically,” Day said. “The base still loves him, and lawmakers and conservative media are afraid of him. The elites would fall in line for fear of MAGA turning on them.”
Ryan Costello, policy director at NIAC, agrees. “Trump wouldn't have been elected president twice if his foreign policy echoed the discredited views of the Bush-Cheney wing of the Republican party,” he said. “Trump can have a deal with Iran or he can be pushed into war by adopting rigid and inflexible demands — the vast majority of Americans want him to lead with diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, it appears increasingly unlikely that Democrats — most of whom supported President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal back in 2015 — will try to make much political hay with any agreement Trump makes with Tehran.
“This is not a time for politics on Iran,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in the House, said last week. “I support [Trump] trying to get a deal with Iran. I supported the Obama nuclear deal. How about we put the interest of our nation and peace above scoring political points at every moment?”
And what’s perhaps overlooked but maybe equally important: major regional powers like Saudi Arabia, who campaigned hard against Obama’s Iran deal, have changed their tune with Trump.
"Gulf leaders have been broadly supportive of the talks between the Trump administration and Iran because they don't want to be caught in the crossfire of a regional escalation if they fail,” Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group told Middle East Eye last week. “That support doesn't necessarily translate into success at the negotiating table but it's a shift from the 2015 talks.”
Perhaps most importantly, Trump can get a deal with Iran that places strict limits on its nuclear program with incredibly intrusive verification mechanisms that will satisfy his stated goal of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon, all without zero enrichment provisions or requiring Iran to dismantle its entire program.
“Not only will adopting a hardline ‘no enrichment’ position push Iran from the negotiating table entirely, it is not necessary for an effective agreement and would not fully address Iran’s proliferation risk,” the Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport wrote recently, adding that “dismantling the infrastructure does not erase the knowledge Iran has gained about uranium enrichment.”
In short, she concluded, the U.S. “can find the right combination of limits and monitoring to block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons while allowing Iran to retain a less risky level of uranium enrichment.”
