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


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday said President Trump did not speak with him, despite deploying national military personnel to respond to Los Angeles protests. Why it matters: Trump claimed that he had spoken with the governor and criticized his handling of the rallies against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's actions. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail," Newsom said on X. "Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Driving the news: Trump, speaking to the media on Tuesday, said he last talked with Newsom "a day ago." "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job," Trump said. "He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death." Reality check: California authorities have not reported any deaths during the protests. A total of 72 people have been arrested over the past weekend, with five police officers being injured, according to local media report on Monday Context: The Marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests.


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."