Opinion - The nuclear deal Trump should make with Iran
Good statecraft depends on marrying objectives to means. Although this is seemingly obvious, America often fails because presidents adopt the wrong objectives.
Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam and George W. Bush in Iraq failed because they did not understand what they were getting into, and the U.S. lacked the means to achieve our objectives at an acceptable price.
The U.S. may have failed in these cases, but using coercion and force to achieve political ends is often necessary. Bill Clinton employed both to alter Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic's calculus and produce a peace agreement in the Balkans in 1995.
Can President Trump do the same to reach an agreement with Iran so that it gives up pursuit of a nuclear weapon? Trump is certainly trying to use threats to achieve that end — emphasizing that he wants diplomacy to succeed but, if it fails, there would be 'bombing' and the consequences for Iran would be 'dire.'
Threats can work if they are credible, and those who we are threatening fear our use of force. In the case of Iran, regime survival has always been the first priority. Avoidance of direct conflict with the U.S. has guided its leaders for nearly 40 years. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, after declaring Iran would fight Iraq for as long it took, accepted a ceasefire in July 1988 after U.S. forces, on the scene to protect reflagged oil tankers, began to sink Iranian naval vessels, destroy Iranian oil platforms and mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner.
In 2003, Iranians thought they were next after U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein. The Islamic Republic made a far-reaching proposal in which it offered to suspend uranium enrichment and end military support for Hezbollah and Hamas. But Bush administration hardliners scuttled it.
In January 2024, after three American troops were killed at Tower 22 in northern Jordan by a drone fired by Kataib Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy in Iraq), the Biden administration responded by hitting 85 different targets in Iraq. Fearing that further U.S. attacks might hit Iran directly, Esmail Qaani, the head of military's elite Quds Forces, went to Baghdad and convinced the proxy militias to stop firing at American forces for the next six months.
Non-military threats that Iran's leaders viewed as costly also affected their behavior. The Iranians declared during the Obama administration that they would not negotiate while they were under economic sanction, yet the administration dramatically expanded the sanctions — and the Iranians negotiated. Now, during the Trump administration, after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected talks with the U.S., saying it was 'not honorable' to engage in them, he relented and authorized such talks.
That doesn't mean reaching an agreement with the Iranians is simple. But for those who say pressure does not work with the Islamic Republic, the record indicates that it does and it can.
But to what end? Trump says that 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon,' but that it could remain a threshold nuclear weapons state and meet that standard. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz went far beyond that, saying the Iranians must completely dismantle their entire nuclear program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared there could be no negotiations if that was on the table. That Araghchi called the first round of talks 'constructive' suggests it was not part of the discussion.
Steve Witkoff, Trump's negotiator, gave an interview after meeting Araghchi in Oman and suggested that verification of levels of enrichment and weaponization would be sufficient. Yes, he subsequently hardened that posture in a tweet, saying Iran had to 'eliminate enrichment and its weaponization program,' but even that objective falls well short of the Waltz statement. And, that statement — and Witkoff's tweet — do not seem to have factored at all in the Witkoff-Araghchi second meeting in Rome, with Araghchi saying afterwards that the 'negotiations are moving forward' and that he and Witkoff were able to reach a 'better understanding about a series of principles and goals.'
It appears that the administration does not have a clear objective in the negotiations. The Iranians no doubt have and will be focusing on preserving as much of their existing nuclear infrastructure as they can, and there's the rub: they have built advanced centrifuges that are enriching to 60 percent, near weapons grade, and that creates the option of going for a nuclear weapon at a time of their choosing. As Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, there is no justifiable civilian purpose for enriching to 60 percent.
Dismantling the nuclear program need not be the objective, but making sure that Iran can no longer preserve a nuclear weapons option must be. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal did not do that. After 15 years, there were no limits on the nuclear infrastructure Iran could build — meaning it was agreeing to defer a nuclear weapons option, not give it up.
If Trump decides that Iran must demonstrably give up preserving a nuclear weapons option, even while it is permitted a civil nuclear program, Witkoff could propose that it end domestic enrichment and get its nuclear fuel from another nation. That would be the simplest and best option from a nonproliferation standpoint. But because the regime would view ending enrichment as a total surrender, it is probably not achievable absent the use of force.
An alternative could be to propose scaling back the size and quality of Iran's nuclear infrastructure to the point where it no longer has a weapons option. These limitations would have either no sunset provision or be reviewable only after 25 years. Specifically, Iran would be limited to 1000 centrifuges, to include only IR-1s and IR-2s and no advanced centrifuges; enrichment to less than 5 percent; and all of its accumulated stockpile of high-enriched uranium would be removed from the country, with less than one bomb's worth of low-enriched uranium permitted.
By combining these terms with intrusive verification of the entire fuel cycle and assured inspection of declared and undeclared nuclear sites, Iran would be retaining civil nuclear power, but not a nuclear weapons option.
The Trump administration would be wise to present such a proposal and publicize it. That would demonstrate to the world — and to a restive Iranian public — that Iran could have a civil nuclear program even with enrichment. This would create pressure both internationally and within Iran to accept the American proposal, and do much to legitimize the use of force if the Iranian leadership rejected it.
Framing objectives in a way that gains support globally certainly helps to marry objectives and means and makes for smart statecraft. Making clear that Iran can have civil nuclear power but not a nuclear weapon option can build pressure on the Iranians by isolating them — even as it raises the specter their leaders have always feared: direct U.S. military action against the regime.
Dennis Ross is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
George Floyd unrest informs Trump's response to Los Angeles protests
President Donald Trump's response to the Los Angeles protests isn't just an opportunity to battle with a Democratic governor over his signature issue. The president sees it as a chance to redo his first-term response to a wave of civil unrest. As protests broke out after the killing of George Floyd in 2020, Trump's instincts were to deploy thousands of active-duty troops across U.S. cities. But some administration officials resisted the idea and reportedly urged the president against invoking the Insurrection Act to do so. Five years later, Trump sees something familiar as protests rage across Los Angeles in response to the administration's immigration raids. He moved quickly to deploy 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to support law enforcement, a decision he credited on Tuesday with preventing a 'great City' from 'burning to the ground.' And he repeatedly signaled his willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act if protests continue to escalate. There's a chief motivating factor driving Trump's aggressive response: The president is eager to avoid a repeat of the summer of protest that followed a Minneapolis police officer's killing of Floyd. The civil unrest added another layer to the turmoil facing Trump, as the country reeled from the Covid pandemic and voters prepared to return to the ballot box. And this time, he has stacked his Cabinet with loyalists and is less restrained by officials such as those in his first administration who feared deploying active-duty military troops would further inflame tensions and be viewed as a step toward martial law. 'The president is trusting his gut here,' said a person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss the president's response, reflecting back to former Chair of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper breaking with Trump's desire to send troops. 'He thinks the Milleys and the Espers of the world, five years ago, they gave him bad advice on that stuff.' Administration officials and allies say the president's hardline approach also sends a warning to other city and state leaders as anti-ICE protests spread beyond Los Angeles. 'In 2020, I was a governor of a neighboring state to Tim Walz and watched him let his city burn,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the Oval Office on Tuesday. 'The president and I have talked about this in the past: He was not going to let that happen to another city and to another community, where a bad governor made a bad decision.' It's yet another example of the president acting on his belief that he has a governing mandate from his 2024 comeback, which aides and allies attribute in large part to immigration and, specifically, the president's vow to deport undocumented immigrants. 'Is the left going to be able to take this over and turn rules-based immigration into yet another fight about how America is racist?' said Matt Schlapp, a Trump confidant and chair of the American Conservative Union. 'The No. 1 reason Donald Trump got reelected was the border. He's implementing exactly what he said he would do, and out of nowhere, there's violence in the streets, there's fire bombs, there's attacks on cops.' A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration's thinking, said immigration enforcement has continued across the country despite the protests: 'Individuals in other cities should realize that rioting will not prevent immigration enforcement operations in their cities as well.' Trump has repeatedly referred to the protesters as 'insurrectionists' and 'violent insurrectionist mobs,' and his rhetoric intensified on Tuesday as he said the protests amount to an 'invasion' that threatens U.S. 'sovereignty' and that he will now allow 'an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' He condemned what he called 'lawlessness' and the burning of the American flag, suggesting it should be punished with a year in prison — echoing his rhetoric from June 2020. But he also said the Los Angeles protests are not yet an insurrection — and that he will only invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, if it escalates to that point. The president on Sunday directed Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi to take 'all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles' and 'put an end to these Migrant riots.' 'Mark Esper fought like the dickens to avoid the Insurrection Act. He wasn't the only one. So did Attorney General [Bill] Barr, and so forth,' said Ken Cuccinelli, who served as Trump's deputy of Homeland Security during the first term. 'Whereas, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth are more along the lines of just giving advice, and 'if it's the route you want to go, Mr. President, we'll salute and we'll move right down that path.' And that speaks to a unity in government that didn't exist in the first term.' The Trump administration's response has alarmed California Democrats, who warn that what's happening in their state paves the way for the president to deploy the military nationwide to enact his immigration agenda. The president has already militarized the border to an unprecedented degree, with military, immigration and legal experts questioning the legality of the approach and warning of potential violations to the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that generally prohibits active-duty troops from being used in domestic law enforcement. Trump's decision to deploy troops has also set off a legal firestorm: California sued the administration for deploying the National Guard without consultation, arguing that using the military to quell the immigration protests is illegal and unconstitutional. Gov. Gavin Newsom filed another suit on Tuesday, asking a federal judge for a restraining order to block Hegseth from ordering troops to support immigration raids in the city 'immediately.' 'There is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other lawyers wrote in the new motion. Rallies protesting the administration's ICE raids and immigration agenda spread across U.S. cities this week. And so-called 'No Kings' rallies, coinciding with the president's military parade in Washington on Saturday, are planned in more than 1,800 cities across the country, including the nation's capital. Trump warned on Tuesday that any protests during this weekend's parade will be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' the president said in the Oval Office. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but [there are] people that hate our country.' Dasha Burns contributed to this report.


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
ABC News cuts ties with Terry Moran after Trump ‘hater' post
ABC News says it will not renew the contract of veteran journalist Terry Moran after he authored a social media post sharply criticizing President Trump and top White House aide Stephen Miller. 'We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew,' a spokesperson for the network told The Hill on Tuesday. 'At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism,' the spokesperson added. Moran was suspended by the network over the weekend for his post on the social platform X in which he called Miller a 'world-class hater' and said 'you can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.' In the since-deleted post, Moran also criticized the president, saying he too is 'a world-class hater' and adding that 'his hatred only a means to an end, and that end [is] his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment.' Moran's post enraged the West Wing, which called on the Disney-owned network to punish the journalist. Almost immediately once Moran's ouster was made public, White House director of communications Steven Cheung celebrated the news, writing in an X post: 'Talk s—. Get hit.' Moran's ouster comes as Trump and his allies in government are ratcheting up pressure on broadcast news networks over their coverage of him and threatening to use executive power to crack down on coverage they say is unfair to his administration. Trump has called out ABC News specifically several times in recent weeks, suggesting the Federal Communications Commission scrutinize its broadcast license. The network late last year agreed to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit out of court stemming from an incorrect statement made by anchor George Stephanopoulos during a broadcast claiming Trump had been convicted of sexual assault. Moran has worked for ABC News for more than two decades and is based in Washington, D.C., having served in a variety of roles for the network.


Time Magazine
19 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
More Than 1,500 ‘No Kings' Protests Planned Amid Trump Crackdown on L.A. Demonstrations
More than 1,500 ' No Kings Day ' demonstrations are set to take place across the U.S. this weekend to protest the Trump Administration as President Donald Trump holds a military parade in Washington, D.C. The demonstrations will take place all over the country on Saturday, coinciding with the parade Trump has planned to mark the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive organization Indivisible that's behind 'No Kings Day,' told MSNBC on Monday that the protests—originally announced last month—have generated 'overwhelming interest' in the aftermath of the Administration's response to the immigration-related protests in Los Angeles. 'In America, we don't do kings,' reads a website for the events. 'They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services. The corruption has gone too. Far.' The protests will follow days of demonstrations in L.A. over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeting undocumented immigrants. In a rare and controversial exercise of presidential power, Trump over the weekend mobilized the National Guard—against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom—to quell the protests in the L.A. area, which had been largely peaceful. The move sparked immediate outcry from Democratic politicians, advocacy organizations, and legal experts. Trump has since escalated federal involvement by deploying hundreds of Marines and thousands of additional National Guard troops to the city. 'No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like,' the 'No Kings Day' description said. 'On June 14th, we're showing up everywhere [Trump] isn't—to say no thrones, no crowns, no kings.' The event's organizers aren't holding a protest in D.C. itself, saying they want to make the demonstrations elsewhere the story of the day rather than allowing Saturday's military parade to be 'the center of gravity.' On Tuesday, Trump warned people planning to protest at the parade that they would face 'very big force.' 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump said. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.'