Latest news with #DavidIgnatius
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump breaks with Putin. But will it last?
Read more from our columnists: Max Boot: Putin took Trump for granted. He's going to pay for his mistake. David Ignatius: In squeezing Putin, Trump 'escalates to de-escalate' Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Scarborough defends Trump's decision to strike Iran, suggests other presidents would have done the same
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough defended President Donald Trump on Monday over his decision to strike Iran's nuclear program, suggesting other presidents might have made the same choice. "I said on Thursday or Friday, the president had no good options. What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved? If Iran wasn't already at 60% and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right?" Scarborough began. "I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any presidents, wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike." Scarborough, a former GOP congressman and longtime critic of the president, asked Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, about Trump's decision during "Morning Joe." "I'm not championing either side of this. Although I ask you, David, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?" Ignatius said that past presidents have also considered this scenario. "Three previous presidents have considered precisely this scenario. They're the ones who developed the weapons and the battle plan. This was something inherited by President Trump. And each of them pulled back because of the uncertainties associated with the action. They decided it just wasn't worth doing," he said. "If President Trump decided last Friday, there is no chance that the negotiated settlement that I want to resolve this is going to work, the Iranians are jamming me, they're just pushing me along, they're stonewalling, is the word that J.D. Vance used. He, in a sense, did have no choice but to move it on to a different terrain," Ignatius said. He warned that the U.S. just doesn't know what might come of the move. "The problem is on that different terrain. We just don't know what's ahead. But I take your point, right. It's his choices were debased at the moment he had to make the decision," Ignatius said. Scarborough noted that past presidents didn't have Iran in a degraded and "cornered" position. He said Iran was "even getting condemned by the United Nations for how quickly they were moving towards developing a nuclear weapon." MSNBC contributor Katty Kay agreed with Scarborough and said Iran had been weakened over the last year, putting Trump in a unique position. "You look at the situation with Hezbollah being degraded, the situation with Syria and Assad falling, Hamas being degraded in Gaza, all around the region, Iran has suffered blows over the past year, not just the past week, and so gave Donald Trump a different set of circumstances in than those three previous presidents have faced," she said. Trump earned praise from other prominent critics as well, including former National Security adviser John Bolton, who said on Sunday, "President Trump made the right decision for America." "It was a decisive action. It was the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time. But better late than never," Bolton told CNN's Kasie Hunt.
Washington Post
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
How does the Israel-Iran conflict end?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. Iran and Israel continue to trade fire this week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered what he called a 'preemptive strike' to disable Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. President Donald Trump has been generally supportive of Israel but has left the door open to negotiations over the nuclear issue. Meanwhile, there's ongoing speculation about whether the United States might get involved in the military campaign given questions about Israel's capability to strike Iran's most hardened targets. Trump fanned those flames on Tuesday by posting on social media that 'we' control the skies over Iran and demanding 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from its leaders. What do the players involved want from this conflict and how does it all end? I gathered Post columnists David Ignatius and Jason Willick to discuss. — Max Boot, columnist 💬 💬 💬 Max Boot So, first question for David and Jason: Echoing Gen. David Petraeus during the invasion of Iraq, tell me how this (in this case, the Israel-Iran conflict) ends? Jason Willick The ideal end would be a weakened Iran submitting to a new, stronger deal with the U.S. to stop the Israeli bombardment. David Ignatius Like most wars, this will end either with a negotiated settlement or a capitulation by a defeated adversary. Trump still appears very much interested in negotiating a new nuclear deal that would fulfill his pledge that 'Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.' Israel seems much less confident than such a deal would achieve the desired result of no nukes — and it may want to push on toward victory. So, the question for Israel is: What does 'victory' look like? Increasingly, to me, it looks like a regime that isn't led by a 'supreme leader' and is changed fundamentally so that it won't behave the same way in the future. David If I had to guess, this war will end with a settlement — because international pressure will demand it. That might be the worst of all possible outcomes, leaving a crippled regime that could behave as Saddam Hussein did in the 1990s — expressing its power by repressing its people more than ever. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Max Do you think Netanyahu is trying to achieve regime change? Jason Netanyahu is definitely talking about regime change. Whether that's a way to pressure Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or an actual objective, or both, is hard to say. Jason A word about regime change: The collapse of the Soviet Union set the tone for what regime change could mean for an older generation. The war in Iraq set the tone for what it means for a younger generation. Younger people, it seems to me, are more skeptical about what it means in practice — cognizant that civil war might be the rule and stable democracy the exception when regimes collapse. Jason Iran, of course, has several ethnic groups besides the Persian majority. It's reasonable to imagine 'regime change' leading to fracturing along new borders rather than simply a new government emerging to run the state as it exists. That's why I think the best outcome is a deal with the current regime from a position of strength. Max How would it even happen if Netanyahu pursues it? I'm not familiar with examples from history of regime change triggered from the air. David I wrote this week that you can't bomb your way into creating a better society. And I think that's the big danger for Israel. I've been to Iran twice over the past 20 years, and I became quite convinced that the regime is deeply unpopular and that the people would much prefer a freer and more secular government. Unfortunately, there's no sign whatsoever of a real movement for change — and, as your question implies, people usually respond to bombardment by getting angry at the attackers rather than their own rulers. David One more thing: Iranians tell me that in their contacts with people back home, a constant refrain is that the authorities have spent more time policing hijabs than looking for secret Mossad shipments of drones. In other words, people think this regime is incompetent, in addition to being repressive. Jason Right. That the regime is oppressive is the more powerful Western messaging and propaganda. But the raw incompetence might be more politically deadly. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Max Both of you talked about having the war end in some kind of settlement. What do you think such a settlement would need to say to satisfy Trump and Netanyahu? Jason The more or less complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. The questions are: (1) Would Iran agree to that even under extreme duress, and (2) how would you persuade the Israelis it would actually happen, such that they would stop their successful attacks and give Iran the chance to regroup? David A real settlement would have verifiable terms that deliver what Netanyahu and Trump have demanded — that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. Given considerable evidence that Iran engaged in nuclear weapons building activities in the past, despite its promises, the level of inspection would have to be extraordinarily intrusive. Max One sticking point is whether Iran will be allowed to retain any uranium enrichment capacity. Netanyahu insists the answer must be no; Khamenei insists the answer must be yes. Trump seemed to go back and forth but landed on no enrichment at all. Will the damage that Israel inflicts from the air be sufficient to coerce Iran into giving up all enrichment? Jason It would be rational for Iran to agree to this — but then it would have been rational for it to agree to that and avoid this attack in the first place. Like Hamas, it might prefer a fight to the death even if it ends in defeat. David I'd be a lot more willing to slide on modest enrichment capability for civilian uses if there was real assurance on weaponization. The problem with weaponization activity, I'm told by both Israelis and Americans, is that it can be dispersed in different labs, and the strands brought back together at the last minute. That makes the verification job difficult, for sure, but not impossible. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Max Do you think Iran has any more cards to play? Its ballistic missile attacks on Israel appear pretty ineffectual because of Israel's missile defenses and Israeli strikes to take out Iranian missiles before they can be fired. I'm struck by the fact that Iran is not moving to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. What do you think it is waiting for? Is this intended to deter the U.S. from entering the conflict militarily? David I fear that Iran does have some unconventional capabilities that, in extremis, it could use. I wrote last week about Iran's back-channel links with al-Qaeda, and in particular with the group's leadership in Yemen. Al-Qaeda has never given up its interest in mass casualty attacks on the United States and Israel. That's something I hope counterterrorism experts have a close eye on. There are other ways Iran could raise the ante — involving cyberattacks and other means of disrupting Israeli life. I hope the Israelis are thinking carefully about these 'black swan' dangers. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Max Do you think Trump should or will join Israel in bombing Iran? Jason It seems as though he's tempted. I think he's in his strongest position making such threats while he uses Israel for leverage. I think the U.S. should resist direct involvement. However: You have to imagine that pulling Israel back, at this point, would involve a U.S. promise to use its bombing capabilities should Iran prove intransigent again. David My sense from talking this week to Trump administration officials is that the president really, really doesn't want to get involved in military action if he can avoid it. I'm told his basic philosophy for this conflict, and most others, is: 'make trade not war.' Max Except, of course, he is massively disrupting trade with his tariffs! David Consistency is not his strong suit.
Washington Post
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
What is Trump's endgame in the Middle East?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. It has been a whirlwind week for President Donald Trump in the Middle East: He has hinted at finalizing an Iran nuclear deal, lifted sanctions on Syria and taken his first meeting with that country's controversial president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Saudi Arabia. I'm joined by David Ignatius, a columnist at Post Opinions, and Josh Rogin, lead global security analyst with Washington Post Intelligence, to chew over everything that's happened. 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Before we look at what has already happened, let me ask you both about something possibly imminent: a new Iran nuclear deal. In Qatar on Thursday, Trump said, 'I think we're getting close.' Do you think he gets it over the line? David Ignatius Trump certainly wants the deal 'over the line.' But to get it there, he needs answers to some very complex questions about the level of Iranian enrichment, if any, that's permitted, and procedures for verification, civilian nuclear power and a range of other technical issues on which the Trump team appears to have little background. This is a case where rushing to an agreement could have long-lasting dangerous results. It's great that Trump is trying to achieve a new breakthrough with Iran — although it's obviously ironic that it seems likely to recapitulate the basics of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement he scuttled in 2018 — but even to get a limited version of the JCPOA is going to take some time and detail work. Josh Rogin Trump's desire to strike a new nuclear deal with Iran seems genuine, but the scattershot way he has been going about it undermines his own chances for success. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, doesn't seem to understand the issues well. He has appointed a mid-level State Department official named Michael Anton, who has scant diplomatic experience, to work out the details. Trump loses interest when things don't turn out the way he wants quickly. The best thing we can say about it is that the negotiations have neutered the faction inside the Trump administration that wants to attack Iran. Trump doesn't seem to want to attack Iran. Good. But this incompetent approach has a very low chance of working out. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir David, you wrote in your column this week that Trump is improvising his way through all of this. All foreign policy is to some extent event-dependent, and Trump is certainly appearing to be more agile by not being tied down to a complex policy process in Washington. But is it all just show? David Trump's mix of disrupter and dealmaker has produced some surprising — and positive — results this week. He opened relations with al-Sharra, beginning a process that might allow the reconstruction of that shattered country. Hurrah. He called off a costly and unproductive 30-day war with the Houthis in Yemen. Again, hurrah. He negotiated directly with Hamas for the release of an Israeli American hostage. Hard to cheer anything that enfranchises Hamas, but great that Edan Alexander is back with his family. These were all creative, break-the-mold actions, and what's most interesting is that each of them countered Israel's policies. Trump has distanced himself from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and showed who's 'boss,' in a way that Joe Biden never did (or probably could have done). For Trump, 'America First' applies to Israel, clearly. Bad news for Bibi. Josh I disagree a bit with you, David, on a couple of these points. Trump ended a costly and unproductive military campaign against the Houthis — that he started — when it became clear it wasn't working. Yes, he deserves credit for getting one American hostage home from Gaza, but he is meanwhile turning a blind eye to Israel starving 2 million Palestinians and doesn't seem to be pressuring Bibi to end the war with a comprehensive deal. So, his 'distance' from Bibi is really of limited utility if it doesn't involve progress to ending the Gaza war. Josh Even a broken clock is right twice each day. There are things Trump stumbles into that make perfect sense. Take the decision to engage with Syria's new government and lift sanctions. That's pretty unconventional, required forgetting about process, and it would be unthinkable for any other president to meet a former al-Nusra leader and call him 'attractive.' So occasionally, Trump's erratic style and penchant for ignoring convention result in something positive. But that's a heck of a risky way to run U.S. foreign policy. And when his instincts are wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir More broadly, I was struck by Trump's speech in Riyadh. He said that, at least under him, the United States has no 'permanent enemies.' How meaningful is that? David I found that statement powerful, too. Nations have interests and values, but they shouldn't have 'permanent enemies' or 'endless wars.' That has been part of Trump's appeal to his base from the beginning of the 2024 campaign — and it resonates around the world, I think. David The danger is that Trump — who wants to make a statecraft spectacle with anyone (remember the crazy diplomacy with Kim Jong Un) — will sell out America's interests and values in his rush to make showy 'big deals.' But for the moment, I want to encourage his revisionism — and open my mind to the possibility that with a serious, tough Iran nuclear agreement, Trump could begin to end what has been a 46-year undeclared war with Tehran. Josh Trump's endorsement of a broad realignment of U.S. foreign policy away from internationalism, multilateralism and democracy promotion, and toward values-agnostic realism, is very significant — not new for Trump but now shared by the administration factions that seem to be winning the ongoing internal factional battles. In the first term, these factions were unable to change much. This time around, they have already succeeded in destroying USAID, gutting U.S. humanitarian projects around the world, and burning down Ronald Reagan's 'arsenal of democracy' in the form of NGOs that worked abroad to support freedom. This is, of course, music to the ears of Persian Gulf monarchies and other despots and dictators worldwide. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Do you think what we've seen so far is making the Middle East more or less stable? Should Americans feel more or less safe and secure after Trump's week of wheeling and dealing? Josh The part of Trump's speech in Riyadh I found most interesting was when he said the U.S. won't tell other countries how to conduct their internal affairs anymore. The other way to say that is that the U.S. will only deal with governments and ignore the aspirations for freedom and dignity of people being repressed by said governments. That might seem pragmatic, but in the long term I argue it's counterproductive, because brutal dictatorships in places such as Iran and Saudi Arabia eventually fall when the people demand rights. See Syria. David Trump's implicit message this week, through all the pompous nonsense, was that he was rebalancing American power with improved relations across the region. We have better relations now with Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, maybe even Iran. Sheesh! He had a good, glitzy week, and if his team can follow up (a big question mark), he will have achieved something solid.
Washington Post
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Will nuclear talks with Iran fall apart?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would be holding direct talks with Iranian leaders about their nuclear program this weekend in Oman. At the same time, Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, insisted that the talks be 'indirect,' with the Omanis mediating, as a confidence-building measure. I'm joined by my colleagues David Ignatius and Jason Rezaian to discuss where things stand. 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic David, in your latest column, you reported that the Trump administration is demanding direct talks or nothing. Are the talks still on as far as we know? David Ignatius I queried the Trump negotiating team to see whether they're packing their bags for Oman. At this point, I have no reason to think the talks won't happen. Someone close to the team stressed to me that they want direct talks because, given the mistrust between the two countries, they think it's necessary to have deep and frank discussions; Araghchi seems to prefer indirect talks as a way of dealing with this same problem of mistrust. This sounds like a problem that probably can be resolved. Although, the format might be fudged so that each side can claim it got what it wanted. Jason Rezaian In Trump's first term, there was no direct contact after he pulled the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. As a result — coupled with the administration's 'maximum pressure' approach — we lost a lot of leverage. I think directness, for the new Trump team, signals a seriousness that wasn't there the last time around. For the Iranians, playing hard to get looks good to the 'hardest-line' crowd. In the end, I think there will be direct meetings. Damir Jason, how is this playing out in Iran? What is the media saying? Jason For years, there have been two camps within Iran's media landscape: those who want zero discussion with America, because it means bending to the will of the Great Satan, and those who believe that only through some sort of agreement with America can Iran escape the existential threat of economic destruction. That camp is winning the internal debate right now. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Trump is threatening violence if the talks don't happen — presumably as a coercive technique for the talks themselves. There was a lot of buzz in Washington ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit on Monday about the possibility of us bombing Iran. But is the threat of strikes credible, given the state of the world economy? Surely a war in the Persian Gulf would spike oil prices, spreading further chaos in markets. Jason The threat of strikes is always credible, especially because Israel has shown the ability to damage Iranian targets, inside and outside Iran's borders. That fear is enough to get Iran to the table. But I don't believe Trump wants to get involved in military actions against Iran; it didn't benefit him during his first term. He undid the JCPOA, President Joe Biden failed to renew it, and now Trump sees an opportunity to 'win' Iran. David We should take Trump at his word when he says he doesn't want more wars in the Middle East — partly because of the oil price spike and partly because he understands that MAGA voters are sick of 'endless wars.' That said, from the beginning, Trump has accompanied his enthusiasm for negotiations with a warning that military action will follow if the talks are not successful. He's even put a two-month deadline for the talks, which is more a symbolic timeline than a real one, I suspect. But he said Wednesday that if military force is used, Israel would take the lead, which I found an unusually specific statement — he doesn't want the United States to be in the lead. Damir Can we destroy Iran's nuclear program with just airstrikes? Or is damaging it enough? David With deep penetrating bombs, Israel and the U.S. could destroy much of the advanced centrifuge array buried at Iran's Fordow facility. But the Iranians have dispersed their program, so it would be very hard to get everything — even if the attack included covert Israeli commando operations. A big bombing attack could keep the Iranians out of the nuclear game for several years, max. The centrifuges could be replaced or repaired, and the real heart of the Iranian program is its scientific expertise — which you can't really bomb. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir The Israelis want full denuclearization from Iran. I imagine the Iranians would only agree to something far short of that. Any sense of where the Trump administration is on this question? Is a middle-ground outcome even possible, or is this 'negotiation' basically a standoff? Jason I don't see the Iranians ever agreeing to completely abandon their nuclear program. They're too invested in it as a point of national pride, and massive treasure, to let it go. David There's real tension between the U.S. and Israeli positions, and it will be fascinating to watch as these talks move forward, with a regular gush of leaks to influence negotiations. Israelis have been telling me since January — when they saw the Trump negotiating train gathering speed — that they would only settle for a 'Libya-style deal': a level of full dismantlement that Iran probably couldn't accept. That's one reason to be skeptical these negotiations will produce anything. I think the Israelis are concerned that Trump is so excited about the diplomatic possibilities that he is weakening the military option, at a time when Israel thinks there is a unique window of opportunity to strike Iran's nuclear program, because Iranian defenses are battered after last October's systematic attacks on its radar and missile production facilities. Damir Heading into this, how optimistic are you that we'll have some kind of breakthrough? Trump clearly wants a big win. Can he get it? David Trump is hungry for a big, showy breakthrough — remember his trip to North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam to meet Kim Jong Un! That's one reason to be optimistic. As my friend Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment reminded me this week, the worst nightmare for Trump hard-liners is that Iran's ayatollah will write Trump a letter saying, 'Let's get together in Dubai.'
