Military personnel stand guard at a nuclear facility in the Zardanjan area of Isfahan, Iran, April 19, 2024, in this screengrab taken from video.(photo credit: WANA/REUTERS)
Steve Witkoff said that the US was “open to compromise” within Iran nuclear talks, only to backtrack his comments and call for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.
When US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Deal in 2018, he said it “was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into,” failing “to protect America’s national security interests” while it “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior.”
Fast forward to 2025, Trump wants to make a deal with Tehran. But will it be for real, aligned with his decade-long belligerent rhetoric toward the Islamic Republic, or will it be a Pyrrhic victory, another “agreement” with no real teeth, to avoid the difficult choice of taking military action to destroy their nuclear program? Is Trump willing to face the electorate’s reaction to the economic consequences of attacking the Iranians, who might block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation?
The Wall Street Journal reported that Steve Witkoff, the administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, is “open to compromise” and is not demanding an end to their nuclear program, only preventing “weaponization” as the “White House’s red line.”
The next day, Witkoff backtracked, saying, “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” So which is it? Are the Iranian diplomats hoodwinking us once again?
According to Elliot Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the US Representative for Iran under the George W. Bush administration, “The United States appears to be signaling weakness right from the start – abandoning the goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program.”
“Instead, Witkoff has signaled a willingness to accept a JCPOA-style deal, where Iran maintains the capacity to produce the fuel for nuclear weapons… If President Trump wants a quick and dirty deal, Iran will be sure to oblige.”
So, would an agreement that only ends weaponization be more akin to a JCPOA 2.0 because it would not dismantle the Iranian nuclear program? There is also the matter of monitoring weaponization, which is far more difficult than scrutinizing enrichment, as it can take place in a small room anywhere in a large nation.
Improvements to the JCPOA might be ending sunset provisions, demanding American inspectors at military sites where weaponization of a nuclear device is most likely to occur, or imposing restrictions on their ballistic missile program.
Unfortunately, since the deal is focused only on the nuclear file, it will abandon the Iranian people and the possibility of regime change, and do nothing to curb its support of its terrorist proxy network.
Trump threatens violence if talks fail
In March 2025, Trump said, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing… the likes of which they have never seen before.” So why is Trump, after so many years of bellicose statements against the Islamic Republic and disparaging comments about the weakness of the Obama/Biden agreement (JCPOA), seemingly open to a limited agreement that sounds little better?
The administration is fearful of the consequences of a preemptive military action. If Iran thinks its hold on power is in doubt, it will take whatever action it believes is necessary to hold onto it, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas transits. This could have a devastating impact on the world economy.
The Iranians remember Trump blinking in 2019, choosing not to retaliate to the Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities. They may believe that his bark is worse than his military bite, especially if isolationists like Vice President JD Vance, commentator Tucker Carlson, and National Intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, continue to have sway over the internationalists like Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, and Mike Huckabee.
If the regime is endangered, as a last-ditch effort and as a bargaining chip to end military strikes, Iran could mine and attack shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which is between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The IRGC has been planning and training for such a scenario for decades.
The bottom line is that the regime’s leaders’ priority is survival, and they will do whatever it takes to survive and fight another day.
In the long run, facilitating the regime’s demise is in our interest. It would allow the most pro-Western Middle Eastern Islamic people, the Iranians, to take charge of their lives and government, creating the conditions for a more stable Middle East.
However, there could be significant economic pain and destabilizing actions at first, which will last through the 2026 midterm congressional election season. Trump is looking not only to survive the normal political reversals of the midterm elections but to thrive by challenging any Republican he deems disloyal.
A new nuclear deal that avoids a war burnishes his brand of keeping America out of wars. Trump will claim a triumphant victory, even if his new agreement with the Islamic Republic is only marginally better than the Obama/Kerry JCPOA.
A poorly negotiated new deal will tie Israel’s hands, as it would not cross Trump even if it believes the time is right to destroy the nuclear weapons and enrichment program, perceived as an existential threat across the Israeli political spectrum.
Israel should anticipate being cut out of the final nuclear negotiations. The surprise announcement of direct talks with Iran while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was recently in the White House hints that the upcoming discussions with Iran are more akin to the Trump team sidelining Ukraine while negotiating directly with the Russian aggressor.
The supreme leader and his experienced diplomats are savvy. They understand that as long as they can give Trump something he can call an American victory, he will make a deal more materially aligned with the JCPOA of 2015. They have strategic patience, and cheating in the future is a given as their unchanging goals are not transactional like the president’s but based on deeply held Shi’ite jihadist beliefs.
Iranian strategists have prepared for the concessions necessary to satisfy Trump. It will allow the regime to live on, continue to threaten its neighbors, and force its citizens to continue living in ghoulish authoritarian jihadist purgatory while biding time to resurrect its proxy networks and secretly advance its nuclear ambitions quietly.
Iran is betting it can offer enough concessions to satisfy the president’s desire for a victory, knowing that the next American president, a Democrat harshly critical of Israel or a Republican isolationist, will look the other way when it again inches its way to a nuclear weapon.
This article originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post on April 17, 2025.
The writer is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and the senior security editor of The Jerusalem Report. He regularly briefs members of the US Congress and their foreign policy aides.