A student looks at Iran’s domestically built centrifuges in an exhibition of the country’s nuclear achievements, in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
Now that nuclear talks with Iran have begun, it behooves Americans to ask whether the president is willing to compromise to get a deal and claim a victory or whether his threats to act militarily if Iran doesn’t dismantle its nuclear program are real or theatre. A third possibility is the most effective path to an enforceable agreement is only after a military strike when Trump will have maximum leverage.
The last deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated by former President Barack Obama in 2015, legitimized the world’s leading state sponsor of terror’s right to enrich uranium, which was unprecedented. Reports say the Trump administration may have already accepted Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear program.
According to his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, he is looking for a verifiable deal, not to dismantle the atomic program. That is a hard sell to our Israeli allies, who uncovered Iran’s nuclear archive in 2018, revealing the regime’s longstanding desire and ability to create nuclear weapons despite the protestations to the contrary of the supreme leader and isolationist American think tanks.
For Trump, a new and improved Iranian agreement is a tantalizing brass ring to wave over the heads of the despised Obama administration. For the Israelis, how enforceable and strong the deal is will be a life and death question.
So, to whom does the president listen? It has been said that the last person in the room is the one who leaves a lasting impression and has the most influence on Trump. But who will be in that room, and what will Trump hear?
Trump prioritizes loyalty, and his Iran representative, Steve Witkoff, seems to have his trust. Given that he never engaged in Middle East negotiating until given the Hamas file, it is reasonable to be skeptical of his ability to outwit the professional Iranian negotiators who practice religiously sanctioned dissimulation (lying), known as “taqiyah.” Hopefully, the team he surrounds himself with has an in-depth understanding of the Shiite Islamists and nuclear matters. I know of at least one who is certainly qualified.
However, Witkoff may be given marching orders based on the advice that Trump’s team of rivals at home has given him. National security advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, are of the same mind regarding Iran: Distrust and then verify.
The rivals speaking into Trump’s other ear are the non-interventional isolationists like Vice President Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, and Tucker Carlson, who has the ear of Trump and his entire political movement.
“It’s clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran. We can’t afford it,” Carlson recently posted on X. “Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country. And yet, we’re closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons. This is suicidal. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.”
“Neocons” is a dog whistle for Jews, and since many in Israel believe the only way to stop Iran’s production of a nuclear weapon is a military strike against its nuclear facilities, Carlson moved Israel from an indispensable ally of both Democrats and Republicans to an enemy state. Carlson has a close relationship with Vance and is credited with convincing Trump to choose him over Rubio as his running mate.
Today, Rubio’s hawkish views are not welcomed by Carlson and his isolationist audience as the best way to get a deal most advantageous to America. The history of American isolationism isn’t pretty, and retrenchment has more often led to war, most notoriously forcing America to enter World War II ill-prepared when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, by the Japanese.
Rubio, Waltz and Huckabee are three people who understand Iran’s intentions. Unfortunately, they are not in President Trump’s favor. This is evident as the president has chosen his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to negotiate with Iran. This should be the purview of the secretary of State.
Another person who gets Iran, but it is uncertain of his current influence with the president is Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who said any agreement with Iran “must recognize Iran’s decades of cheating, the regime’s barbaric nature and its open commitment to destroying the state of Israel.”
President Trump blindsided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House by announcing American direct talks with Iran. The Iranians are a stone’s throw from a nuclear weapon. They are rearming Iraqi militias they control with American blood on their hands, continue to send missiles to the Houthis to attack our maritime shipping, have been transferring weapons to rearm Hezbollah via the Beirut port and continue to try to kill Iranian dissidents on our soil.
Iran has abundant strategic patience and is willing to wait decades for its religiously inspired goals. It has no intention of giving up on its desire for hegemony, the destruction of Israel, the diminution of American influence in the region, or its ability to have nuclear weapons to intimidate its adversaries.
Supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship give Trump the benefit of the doubt on Iran, as he did things in his first term that no other president dared — moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel‘s capital, cutting off funds to the corrupt and disingenuous Palestinian Authority, and recognizing Israel‘s sovereignty in the Golan Heights.
If direct talks do not lead to a verifiable dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program, ending support of its proxy network and terrorist reach overseas, then expect the Iranian file to land on a future American president’s desk in a disadvantageous state of play.
So, who is in ascendancy on the Trump foreign policy team: isolationists or the highly experienced Rubio, Waltz and Huckabee team? Will Trump’s choices on Iran and Middle East policy be according to the trilogy of isolationism, non-intervention and protectionism, or are his ears still open to those in the Republican Party, like Rubio, Graham and Waltz, who believe that credible military threats are the best way to get a strong nuclear agreement, create stability and avoid wars. Trump’s rhetoric is aligned with the latter.
Mr. President, please bring Rubio, Waltz, Huckabee and Graham back into the fold for America’s security interests in meeting your goal that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
This article originally appeared in The Hill on April 21, 2025.
Eric R. Mandel is the senior security editor of the Jerusalem Report and the director of the Middle East Political Information Network.