U.S. President Donald Trump seeks a new negotiated deal with Iran, aiming to limit its missile program and regional influence without military strikes. Recent events have complicated this diplomatic effort, as Iran rejects overtures from the U.S. due to perceived threats. Experts caution about the effectiveness of Trump’s negotiation tactics and the possible consequences if both diplomacy and nuclear advancements are pursued by Iran.
U.S. President Donald Trump is pursuing a negotiated deal with Iran that aims to limit its ballistic missile program and curb support for regional proxies without resorting to direct military strikes, as suggested by an esteemed expert on Iran’s foreign policy. This approach contrasts sharply with Trump’s earlier “maximum pressure” policy characterized by sanctions and air strikes. Recently, Iran rejected Trump’s proposal for dialogue, labeling it deceitful.
The backdrop of this diplomatic pursuit includes various regional conflicts and developments, including the ongoing Hamas-Israel war and U.S. air strikes on Houthi forces in Yemen. Professor Mohsen Milani, an authority on Middle Eastern affairs, posits that these events may make Iran more amenable to negotiations, as the country grapples with economic challenges stemming from a long-standing embargo.
Milani suggests that Trump’s overtures are driven by a perception of Iranian vulnerability, with some U.S. officials advocating for a more aggressive stance, possibly aiming for regime change. He articulates that this view prevails among policymakers, expressing a belief that Iran presents a diminished threat that must be decisively addressed.
Despite Trump’s attempts to re-establish negotiations, Milani warns that Iran is unlikely to concede significant terms, as acquiescing to American demands may signal defeat. Trump’s previous withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal set the framework for today’s negotiations, which critics argue had inadvertently empowered Tehran’s geopolitical maneuvers in the region.
In light of recent changes, such as Iran’s diplomatic engagements with Gulf counterparts like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, there are new variables that could alter the negotiation landscape. However, concerns arise regarding Trump’s negotiation style, which some experts believe may not resonate well against the Iranian negotiating strategy.
Notably, there exists a mutual interest in stabilizing oil prices, which could facilitate an agreement where sanctions on Iranian oil are lifted, allowing its re-entry into the global market. Nevertheless, Trump’s potential reliance on military action complicates Iran’s decision-making process, creating a precarious balance.
Milani outlines a concerning scenario where Iran might attempt to pursue both negotiations for sanctions relief and the advancement of its nuclear weapons program, which could provoke dire consequences. He highlights the risk involved in Iran’s potential dual approach toward negotiation and weaponization, emphasizing the dangers such a strategy holds for regional stability.
In conclusion, President Trump’s initiative to negotiate a new deal with Iran reflects a shift from previous aggressive strategies. Despite Iran’s reluctance to engage, ongoing regional conflicts and economic struggles may create opportunities. However, the effectiveness of Trump’s blunt negotiating style remains in question. As both sides navigate interests and pressures, the potential for unintended military escalation presents significant risks.
Original Source: www.thenationalnews.com
