Follow us on social

Steve Witkoff

Witkoff's latest 'zero enrichment' red line has zero chance of working

Iran will see it as a trap and the window for a deal will be lost

Analysis | QiOSK

Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s hard-charging envoy, is doubling down on “zero enrichment” as the red line in nuclear talks with Iran — a rigid stance that risks sabotaging diplomacy altogether.

“We have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability,” Witkoff tells ABC’s “This Week.”

“Everything begins… with a deal that does not include enrichment… because enrichment enables weaponization, and we will not allow a bomb to get here,” he addsed.

As I recently argued in The American Conservative, this demand has, for 25 years, proven both futile and counterproductive. It gives Iran more time to advance its nuclear program while stalling the realistic, verification-based deals that could actually constrain it. Unless Trump reverts to his original red line — weaponization — this rare chance to stop both an Iranian bomb and a war could slip away.

Witkoff’s maximalist posture may be a bargaining tactic, but airing it publicly risks poisoning the atmosphere. As soon as Iran starts reciprocating, optimism could curdle into confrontation, slamming shut Trump’s narrow window for diplomacy.

Even if tensions don’t boil over immediately, this strategy still squanders critical time. With the UN snapback deadline looming, delays are dangerous. Secretary Marco Rubio may believe triggering snapback boosts pressure, but in reality, it could produce a volatile and uncertain situation.

China and Russia will challenge the snapback’s legitimacy, severely blunting its power. Rallying Global South nations to reimpose unilateral sanctions — already far tougher than in 2011 — will likely fall flat. Western diplomats admit this privately, yet still argue that snapback must proceed for appearances, not impact.

Trump will soon realize the limits of this approach and likely pivot — belatedly — toward negotiating an extension of the deadline. But that shift will drag the U.S. into a far messier arena: no longer a comparatively simple U.S.-Iran exchange, but a complex, time-consuming negotiation involving Russia, China, Germany, France, and the UK.

Witkoff may hope his hardline stance forces Tehran to bend on another demand: a full pause on uranium enrichment — at all levels — through the end of Trump’s presidency as a temporary trust-building gesture.

But this is a shaky gamble for two key reasons: Iran is highly unlikely to agree, and even if it does, the payoff is questionable.

Tehran has never accepted a total halt to enrichment—not even temporarily. They know restarting it would carry steep political costs, even if Iran has lived up to all of its obligations. This would amount to them giving up their main leverage in return for a promise of a reward down the road. Not only are they starting with zero trust in the US, they also saw what happened to Hamas in the past few months.

Hamas entered a three-phase deal on Gaza, surrendering most of their leverage in Phase I, despite knowing Israel’s main concession wouldn’t come until Phase III. Predictably, Netanyahu torpedoed the deal after Phase I, reignited the war, and paid no price from the U.S. Iran watched that unfold — and took notes.

Moreover, according to Drop Site News, last week’s release of American hostage Edan Alexander reportedly came in exchange for a U.S. promise to pressure Netanyahu for a ceasefire. Once again, key leverage was surrendered upfront, banking on future reciprocity. But Trump isn’t pressuring Israel — indeed, Netanyahu just launched a major ground offensive in Gaza.

Expecting Iran to relinquish its main leverage in exchange for vague U.S. promises assumes a level of Iranian trust in the U.S. that simply hasn’t existed in over four decades. Even the offer of primary sanctions relief — while significant — doesn’t sufficiently shift that reality.

More critically, even if Iran agrees to a temporary halt in enrichment, its value is dubious — unless the goal is to trap Tehran into never restarting. Otherwise, it’s just a fleeting pause with little political payoff. Washington’s foreign policy elite will likely shrug, and the broader American public — disillusioned with endless wars and Beltway games — cares far more about avoiding conflict and boosting jobs than symbolic nuclear gestures.

Indeed, the Iranians understand that the value of a halt is mainly to trap them into a perpetual state of no-enrichment, which is precisely why they are unlikely to agree to it.

The bottom line is that the zero enrichment goal was John Bolton and Mike Pompeo's objective precisely because they knew it would lead to war. That remains true today.

Trump promised the American people no new wars in the Middle East. He needs a better strategy if he wishes to deliver on that promise.


Top photo credit: US-Iran envoy Steve Witkoff (ABC's This Week screengrab)
Analysis | QiOSK
Afghan deportations Iran
Afghan nationals, who were deported from Iran, wait to board a bus upon their arrival at the Islam Qala border crossing in Herat province, Afghanistan, July 22, 2025. REUTERS/Sayed Hassib
signal-2025-08-28-165306_002

Millions of Afghans forced to return to a hellscape the world forgot

Middle East

It’s been a dark summer for Afghans. When Israel launched the 12-day war with Iran on June 13, Tehran used it as a pretext to scapegoat some of its most vulnerable residents.

In its latest wave of deportations, an estimated 700,000 Afghans have returned to Afghanistan since Iran began expulsions that month. Then on July 31, Pakistan launched the third phase of its “Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan,” announced in 2023, arresting and detaining Afghans across the country.

keep readingShow less
Thomas Barrack
Top image credit: U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and U.S. special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (not pictured) at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Tom Barrack has an offer that Lebanon simply can't refuse

Middle East

A tale of two envoys recently unfolded in Beirut, encapsulating the crossroads at which Lebanon now stands. Tanned and sporting a pink tie, the U.S. Envoy Tom Barrack arrived with Deputy Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus in mid-August. Their meetings with top Lebanese officials underscored Washington’s insistence that lasting stability in Lebanon depends on consolidating state authority, and disarming Hezbollah.

Days earlier, Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, had departed, leaving a message equally blunt but diametrically opposed: Hezbollah’s arms are a red line and are necessary tools for its “resistance” to Israel. These visits represent the opposing magnetic poles pulling at the country.

Lebanon is reeling from a confluence of catastrophes. A devastating scuffle with Israel last year decapitated Hezbollah’s leadership and ravaged its strongholds. Compounding this military blow was a strategic amputation: the swift collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which severed the critical land bridge that for decades funneled Iranian arms and support to Iran’s most prized regional proxy. Into this vortex has stepped Barrack, a 40-year friend of Donald Trump and a businessman by trade, embodying a U.S. strategy that is quintessentially Trumpian in its DNA.

keep readingShow less
Afghanistan withdrawal
Lloyd Austin, Kenneth McKenzie, and Mark Milley in 2021. (MSNBC screengrab)

Turns out leaving Afghanistan did not unleash terror on US or region

Military Industrial Complex

It will be four years since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, ending a nearly 20-year occupation that could serve as a poster child for mission creep.

What began in October 2001 as a narrow intervention to destroy al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and topple the Taliban government for refusing to hand over al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, morphed into an open-ended nation-building operation that killed 2,334 U.S. military personnel and wounded over 20,000 more.

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.