Latest news with #Libya-style
New York Post
7 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Iran rulers' playing for time is one big reason Trump shouldn't give them any
Hmm: Hours after the world learned that President Donald Trump would take 'up to two weeks' to decide whether to send in US warplanes to drop bunker-busters on Fordow, Tehran's last main nuclear site, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi vomited up some fresh bluster. That makes it obvious the regime intends to just string this out for as long as possible, hoping that Europe and/or Congress will somehow get Trump to tell Israel to stop its campaign. Which means the president needs to pay even more heed to the risks of holding off on a decisive intervention. That includes not just the possible loss of public support that's built over the last week, but the chance that some unforeseen development will raise the stakes beyond a straightforward strike on a single nuke site. To be clear, Trump can still hope for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program, but Araqchi's ploy reeks of the same bogus game that Hamas has been playing ever since the end of the Gaza ceasefire the prez imposed as he was taking office. A game the Iranian was plainly pushing as he met Friday in Geneva with a passel of European diplos trying to 'de-escalate' the conflict. Meanwhile, some in Congress are maneuvering to tie Trump's hands, insisting he shouldn't act without votes in the House and Sente explicitly authorizing any strikes — a precedent that would likely permanently limit not just this president, but all future holders of the Oval Office. For what it's worth, Trump plainly isn't holding off only because the ayatollah might see reason: He's also considering the full impact of a US strike, and seeing what else may develop. For example: Maybe Israel can take out Fordow without our help, whether with repeated waves of smaller bombs or (conceivably) the most ambitious commando raid ever. He's reportedly also worried about Iran descending into total chaos, as Libya did after President Barack Obama arrogantly decided he could show the world how 'regime change' should be done. Yet that raises another angle that argues against Trump taking his time: Israel's ongoing total humiliation of the Islamic Republic's rulers (and its killing of many of them) could trigger a Libya-style 'regime collapse' even without a Fordow takeout. So a fast elimination of all Tehran's nuclear assets, allowing Israel to stand down, is arguably the best hope for the region to stabilize. Khamenei and his advisers care only about protecting their own power, so they'll use every hour Trump gives them searching for some way out of the trap they put themselves in by ignoring Trump's last deadline. Trump has to look at the bigger picture, including the risks (seen and unseen) of letting Tehran keep playing games.
Asharq Al-Awsat
03-05-2025
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
New US-Iran Agreement Stricter Than 2015 JCPOA
The US is seeking to ink a new agreement with Iran similar to their 2015 JCPOA but with stricter conditions, including a permanent and structural change in Tehran's nuclear capabilities. The deal comes despite pressures imposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who seek a 'zero enrichment' and a Libya-style deal that dismantles Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Diplomats from all sides of the negotiations told Reuters on Friday that an initial framework under discussion preserves the core of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - scrapped by President Donlad Trump in 2018 during his first term. Eight sources said a deal may not look radically different to the former pact, which Trump called the worst in history, but would extend duration to 25 years, tighten verification, and expand so-called sunset clauses that pause but don't completely dismantle aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Stricter Deal Under the terms being discussed, Iran would limit stockpile size and centrifuge types, and dilute, export or seal its 60% uranium stock under unprecedented International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny - all in exchange for substantial sanctions relief, all the sources said. Also, under proposals discussed in rounds of talks in April, Iran would cap enrichment at 3.67%, in line with the JCPOA, all the sources said, including three Iranian officials. Tehran is also open to granting the IAEA expanded access to its nuclear sites, the Iranian sources said. A senior regional source close to Tehran said the current debate over Iran's uranium stockpiles centers on whether Iran 'will keep a portion of it - diluted - inside the country while sending another portion abroad, possibly to Russia.' Meanwhile, the Reuters report mentioned several sticking points, mainly related to Washington's demand to address the Iranian ballistic program, while Iranian officials say their missile development is not up for negotiation. Another striking point is related to Iran's refusal to dismantle its entire nuclear infrastructure. Diplomats said Netanyahu sees a rare opening because last year's military campaigns crippled Iran's air defenses, and decimated Hezbollah's missile arsenal - Tehran's primary deterrent. 'This is a historic window for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear sites,' said an official in the Middle East. The United States, he said, opposes such a move for several reasons - chief among them the concerns of Gulf Arab states, which Washington cannot ignore given its deep strategic and economic ties in the region. Israel is demanding 'zero enrichment' and a Libya-style deal that dismantles Iran's nuclear infrastructure. One regional security official said Washington is pressing to include the ballistic missile program in the talks, but Tehran 'continues to reject any discussion.' He added that the problem is that without addressing the missile issue, Trump cannot claim that the new deal goes beyond the JCPOA. One Iranian official previously told Reuters it would not go beyond the requirements of the 2015 deal, offering only to avoid building missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads as a 'gesture of goodwill.' Trump Ups Pressure While Trump further increased the pressure against Iranian oil, US expects new discussions with Iran 'in the near future' on Tehran's nuclear program, despite the postponement of those planned for Saturday. The talks between the two countries, enemies for four decades, aim to conclude a new agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - an ambition Tehran has always denied having - in exchange for lifting the sanctions that are crippling its economy. Washington and Tehran were set to meet for a fourth round of negotiations on Saturday in Rome, after both parties reported progress in previous discussions. But Iran confirmed the postponement on Thursday after the Omani mediator cited 'logistical reasons.' Washington nevertheless indicated it "expects that new discussions will take place in the near future," stating that the date and location of those originally planned for this weekend were never confirmed. Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told AFP that other discussions scheduled for Friday, between Iran on one hand, and the United Kingdom, France, and Germany on the other, will also not occur. Barrot is in Washington, where he met his US counterpart Marco Rubio. Rubio told Fox News that Iran should not be afraid of nuclear inspections, including by Americans, amid diplomatic efforts between the two countries over Iran's nuclear program. Oil Purchases Trump, who has revived his so-called 'maximum pressure' policy on Iran by pressing it to negotiate while threatening to bomb it if diplomacy fails, promised Thursday to be uncompromising in the effective implementation of sanctions dating back to his first term. Specifically, radical measures against Iranian oil. 'All purchases of Iranian oil or petrochemical products must cease, NOW,' the American president emphasized on his Truth social network. 'Any country or person buying any amount of Iranian oil or petrochemical products will be immediately subjected to indirect sanctions.' Trump's warnings come a day after Washington announced new sanctions against seven companies accused of being involved in selling Iranian oil. In response, Iran slammed a 'US policymakers' contradictory approach, and their lack of good faith and seriousness to progress on the path of diplomacy.' Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said 'these sanctions, designed within the framework of the criminal and failed 'maximum pressure' policy, expose Washington's contradictory behavior and its lack of sincerity in advancing diplomacy.' He said, 'The sanctions announced in recent days under various pretexts—targeting Iranian and non-Iranian individuals and companies—are a blatant sign of the US ongoing violations of international norms and its efforts to disrupt legal relations between developing nations through economic terrorism.'
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - More sanctions on Iran won't work — Trump can rewrite the playbook
Following last weekend's constructive talks in Oman, the Trump administration has a rare opportunity to reset relations with Tehran — but only if it backs diplomacy with policy shifts that genuinely turn the page. Just weeks after expanding the U.S. military presence and a month after initiating a bombing campaign against targets in Yemen, both U.S. and Iranian officials have confirmed a second round of talks will take place, likely in Rome or Oman. Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently cast this diplomatic overture as a bid to resolve tensions 'through dialogue' instead of military escalation. Yet diplomacy built atop coercion is nothing new — and it has consistently failed. Trump torched the 2015 nuclear deal and cratered Iran's economy with his 'maximum pressure' campaign, yet failed to deliver a less defiant Islamic Republic. If Trump thinks Tehran will simply return to the table, he underestimates the depth of mistrust his first term rekindled. Tehran has already rejected the suggestion of a Libya-style nuclear deal, a model seen in Iran as a prelude to eventual regime change. As top diplomat Abbas Araghchi put it, Iran's initial hesitation to engage reflects not 'stubbornness' but the hard lessons of past U.S. policy. For any deal to succeed, Trump must abandon the failed playbook of ultimatums in favor of building trust and embracing what he claims to understand best: the power of business. A proactive targeted sanctions carve-out — large enough to signal sincerity, narrow enough to exclude U.S.-designated entities — could shift Tehran's calculus. One model Trump could follow is authorizing the import of goods and services from Iran's private-sector entrepreneurs, akin to the allowances under in the Treasury's Cuba sanctions regulations. Permitting specified trade or investment would not only show good faith, it would create the kind of durable incentives that reshape long-term strategies. Such a gesture would also serve as a stabilizing guarantee at the outset of negotiations, reducing the risk that talks unravel prematurely or collapse under the weight of long-standing mistrust. Done right, it would shift the onus of escalation back onto Tehran, forcing its leadership to decide whether to reciprocate or retreat. With negotiations still fragile, targeted sanctions relief could inject momentum into a process that risks stalling before it even gets off the ground. This approach doesn't just apply to foreign policy — it's a regulatory imperative. The U.S. dollar–dominant paradigm has leaned too heavily on sweeping, country-wide sanctions designed for a less traceable world. For decades, sanctions have been Washington's tool of choice, imposed broadly, enforced aggressively and rarely recalibrated. But in an era of real-time financial surveillance and artificial intelligence, this blunt instrument increasingly misaligns with the dynamics of today's data-rich global economy. Banks navigate opaque risks, humanitarian channels falter, and targeted regimes often adapt faster than their presumed pressure points collapse. Few cases illustrate this dysfunction more clearly than U.S. foreign policy on Iran. U.S. sanctions have metastasized into a politically entrenched doctrine. Even modest adjustments are cast as capitulations or appeasement. A serious reassessment of this framework is long overdue. A modern sanctions architecture should enable engagement where possible, isolate where necessary, and move beyond outdated habits of indiscriminate pressure. Sanctions have not — and will not — break Iran's ruling elite. They enrich regime cronies operating in black markets, hollow out civil society and discourage lawful engagement. No president has ever replaced coercion with economic engagement as the implicit guarantor of U.S. diplomacy with Iran. Trump could be the first. Trump's business instincts should guide him here. Lasting agreements, whether real estate deals or diplomatic breakthroughs, aren't built on threats but on mutual interest. History proves it: President Richard Nixon opened China through trade, not ultimatums. Europe cemented postwar peace through economic integration. Washington has long championed markets as tools to promote openness and reform — yet Iran, like other heavily sanctioned states, is treated as an anomaly. Remarkably, Tehran is now signaling openness to U.S. investment. Even Iran's supreme leader is reportedly open to American business involvement in the country's vast, untapped economy — a rare greenlight that offers Trump an opening no previous president has had. Only Trump has the political capital to forge a new beginning, grounded in earned trust and a deal that replaces coercion with commerce. A Democrat proposing it would be pilloried as weak. But Trump — a president who once ordered Qassem Soleimani's assassination and spent his first term antagonizing Tehran — has the credibility to pivot without appearing soft to Washington's most hawkish factions. Just as only Nixon, a staunch anti-communist, could go to China, only Trump can chart a new course with Tehran. But only if he chooses to trade bravado for statecraft. Trump's letter cracked open the door with Tehran. A well-timed act of commercial diplomacy could push it wide open. The first round of talks showed that there is mutual will to reset U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Now is the time to trade in Washington's exhausted playbook on Iran in favor of a smarter, more adaptive approach: one attuned to the realities of an interconnected world, where diplomacy is increasingly underwritten by global markets and shared economic interests. Only such an approach can end a cycle of hostility that sanctions have never been able to break. Mohsen Farshneshani, Esq., is the principal attorney at the Sanctions Law Center, a boutique law firm specialized in economic sanctions, and serves as an adviser at DAWN MENA. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
16-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
More sanctions on Iran won't work — Trump can rewrite the playbook
Following last weekend's constructive talks in Oman, the Trump administration has a rare opportunity to reset relations with Tehran — but only if it backs diplomacy with policy shifts that genuinely turn the page. Just weeks after expanding the U.S. military presence and a month after initiating a bombing campaign against targets in Yemen, both U.S. and Iranian officials have confirmed a second round of talks will take place, likely in Rome or Oman. Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently cast this diplomatic overture as a bid to resolve tensions 'through dialogue' instead of military escalation. Yet diplomacy built atop coercion is nothing new — and it has consistently failed. Trump torched the 2015 nuclear deal and cratered Iran's economy with his 'maximum pressure' campaign, yet failed to deliver a less defiant Islamic Republic. If Trump thinks Tehran will simply return to the table, he underestimates the depth of mistrust his first term rekindled. Tehran has already rejected the suggestion of a Libya-style nuclear deal, a model seen in Iran as a prelude to eventual regime change. As top diplomat Abbas Araghchi put it, Iran's initial hesitation to engage reflects not 'stubbornness' but the hard lessons of past U.S. policy. For any deal to succeed, Trump must abandon the failed playbook of ultimatums in favor of building trust and embracing what he claims to understand best: the power of business. A proactive targeted sanctions carve-out — large enough to signal sincerity, narrow enough to exclude U.S.-designated entities — could shift Tehran's calculus. One model Trump could follow is authorizing the import of goods and services from Iran's private-sector entrepreneurs, akin to the allowances under in the Treasury's Cuba sanctions regulations. Permitting specified trade or investment would not only show good faith, it would create the kind of durable incentives that reshape long-term strategies. Such a gesture would also serve as a stabilizing guarantee at the outset of negotiations, reducing the risk that talks unravel prematurely or collapse under the weight of long-standing mistrust. Done right, it would shift the onus of escalation back onto Tehran, forcing its leadership to decide whether to reciprocate or retreat. With negotiations still fragile, targeted sanctions relief could inject momentum into a process that risks stalling before it even gets off the ground. This approach doesn't just apply to foreign policy — it's a regulatory imperative. The U.S. dollar–dominant paradigm has leaned too heavily on sweeping, country-wide sanctions designed for a less traceable world. For decades, sanctions have been Washington's tool of choice, imposed broadly, enforced aggressively and rarely recalibrated. But in an era of real-time financial surveillance and artificial intelligence, this blunt instrument increasingly misaligns with the dynamics of today's data-rich global economy. Banks navigate opaque risks, humanitarian channels falter, and targeted regimes often adapt faster than their presumed pressure points collapse. Few cases illustrate this dysfunction more clearly than U.S. foreign policy on Iran. U.S. sanctions have metastasized into a politically entrenched doctrine. Even modest adjustments are cast as capitulations or appeasement. A serious reassessment of this framework is long overdue. A modern sanctions architecture should enable engagement where possible, isolate where necessary, and move beyond outdated habits of indiscriminate pressure. Sanctions have not — and will not — break Iran's ruling elite. They enrich regime cronies operating in black markets, hollow out civil society and discourage lawful engagement. No president has ever replaced coercion with economic engagement as the implicit guarantor of U.S. diplomacy with Iran. Trump could be the first. Trump's business instincts should guide him here. Lasting agreements, whether real estate deals or diplomatic breakthroughs, aren't built on threats but on mutual interest. History proves it: President Richard Nixon opened China through trade, not ultimatums. Europe cemented postwar peace through economic integration. Washington has long championed markets as tools to promote openness and reform — yet Iran, like other heavily sanctioned states, is treated as an anomaly. Remarkably, Tehran is now signaling openness to U.S. investment. Even Iran's supreme leader is reportedly open to American business involvement in the country's vast, untapped economy — a rare greenlight that offers Trump an opening no previous president has had. Only Trump has the political capital to forge a new beginning, grounded in earned trust and a deal that replaces coercion with commerce. A Democrat proposing it would be pilloried as weak. But Trump — a president who once ordered Qassem Soleimani's assassination and spent his first term antagonizing Tehran — has the credibility to pivot without appearing soft to Washington's most hawkish factions. Just as only Nixon, a staunch anti-communist, could go to China, only Trump can chart a new course with Tehran. But only if he chooses to trade bravado for statecraft. Trump's letter cracked open the door with Tehran. A well-timed act of commercial diplomacy could push it wide open. The first round of talks showed that there is mutual will to reset U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Now is the time to trade in Washington's exhausted playbook on Iran in favor of a smarter, more adaptive approach: one attuned to the realities of an interconnected world, where diplomacy is increasingly underwritten by global markets and shared economic interests. Only such an approach can end a cycle of hostility that sanctions have never been able to break. Mohsen Farshneshani, Esq., is the principal attorney at the Sanctions Law Center
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In Iran talks, Trump envoy stresses verification of nuclear program, omits demand for dismantlement
US envoy Steve Witkoff has said that moving forward, talks with Iran would be about verification of its nuclear program, stopping short of calling for Tehran to dismantle it altogether. 'The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points,' Witkoff told Fox News on Monday. The first is verification of uranium enrichment, 'and ultimately verification on weaponization, that includes missiles, type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.' Witkoff did not mention a demand to fully dismantle Iran's nuclear program, as other US officials have, saying only that Iran does not need to enrich uranium past 3.67% to run a civilian program. Other officials have been more hawkish on what the US expects from Iran. On Sunday, a day after Witkoff started talks with Iranian negotiators in Oman, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Tehran to fully dismantle its nuclear program. 'Iran, come to the table, negotiate, full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities,' he said on Fox News, echoing earlier remarks by US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, who told CBS last month that Trump would demand a 'full dismantlement.' Iranian officials have dismissed that proposal as a non-starter, accusing the US of using it as a pretext to weaken and ultimately topple the Islamic Republic. Tehran is entitled to a civilian nuclear energy program under a UN treaty. The UN nuclear watchdog has however warned that Iran has been accelerating its enrichment of uranium to up to 60% purity, closer to the roughly 90% level that is weapons grade. Uranium is a powerful fuel used in nuclear energy and weapons. When enriched, it can be used either to generate electricity or make bombs, depending on how much it is enriched. On Friday, semi-official Tasnim news agency reported that Iran had set strict terms ahead of the talks with the US, saying that 'red lines' include 'threatening language' by the Trump administration and 'excessive demands regarding Iran's nuclear program.' The US must also refrain from raising issues relating to Iran's defense industry, Tasnim said, likely referring Iran's ballistic missile program, which the US' Middle Eastern allies see as a threat to their security. Witkoff began talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Saturday, which both sides described as positive. The next round of talks will take place on April 19, and a person familiar with the planning told CNN they will likely be in Rome, but the plan isn't fully nailed down. It is unclear how the deal President Donald Trump is envisioning would differ from the one brokered by the Obama administration in 2015, which Trump withdrew from three years later. Trump has vowed to strike a 'stronger' agreement this time around. Israel has been among the loudest advocates for Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear program. Speaking alongside Trump at the Oval Office last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu touted a Libya-style nuclear deal between the US and Iran, which in 2003 dismantled the North African nation's nuclear program in the hopes of ushering in a new era of relations with the US after its two-decade oil embargo on Muammar Qaddafi's regime. After relinquishing its nuclear program, Libya descended into civil war following a 2011 NATO-backed uprising that toppled Qaddafi's regime and led to his killing. Iranian officials have long warned that a similar deal would be rejected from the outset. CNN's Alex Marquardt and Abbas Al Lawati contributed reporting.
