In an analytical report titled “Can Trump Make the Final Deal with Iran?”, New York Times examines the possible fate of Iran-US relations during Donald Trump’s second term as president.
The report discusses Trump’s progressive strategies towards Iran and lists potential scenarios and possibilities. Contrary to the prevailing pessimistic view, the NYT report does not consider a historic agreement between Iran and the United States to be unlikely. A summary of this analysis is as follows:
š¹On the surface, Trump’s history of withdrawing from the JCPOA, imposing extensive sanctions on Iran, assassinating Qassim Soleimani, as well as forming a strongly anti-Iranian cabinet and being close to Netanyahu promise the beginning of a new round of tough policies against Iran.
š¹However, Trump’s unpredictable approach may lead to a historic reconciliation between Iran and the United States and end decades of hostility.
š¹The reason why Trump prepared an economic war against Iran in his first term as president was the belief that the Islamic Republic was a house of cards and would collapse due to unpopularity. But this did not happen.
š¹There are limits to taking the previous approach. Because there is little left in Iran to sanction: its banks, shipping, oil industry, military, and much more are already under crushing U.S. and international sanctions. But Iranās leaders have found ways to survive. The idea that more economic pressure will eventually break the Iranian regime has been proven wrong time and again.
Trumpās three choices regarding Iran
š¹This leaves the incoming Trump administration with three choices: ignore Iran, go to war with it, or try diplomacy.
š¹Ignoring Iran has never worked. Iranās emergence at critical moments has always been costly for American presidents. The hostage crisis and subsequent defeat of Jimmy Carter, the imperilment of the Bush Jr. partyās victory because of the nightmare that Iranian-backed militias in Iraq had created for American forces, and the weakening of the United Statesā position in the Middle East, which came about because of Chinaās mediation in improving relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
š¹Although Netanyahu seeks to weaken or even destroy the Islamic Republic, Trumpās isolationist tendencies make him an unwilling partner for a direct military confrontation with Iran. It should also be noted that Trump has somewhat risked his reputation and reputation to end the wars in the Middle East.
š¹This makes diplomacy the best option for Trump. The most tempting course of action for him would be to find a way to end Israelās war with Hamas, take credit for it, and then pivot to a historic deal with Iran. This would enable Trump to claim that he has brought a comprehensive American peace to the Middle East.
š¹Whether he will succeed is another matter. But if he does, Trump can forever boast that he has achieved something that his predecessor, Joe Biden, never could.
š¹Historically, Trump has enjoyed a showman-like display of power, followed by a sudden and unexpected gesture of compassion. Trump, for example, had previously said that Israel should strike Iranās nuclear facilities, but later told reporters that he āwasnāt looking to harm Iran.ā He added, āI want them to be a very successful country.ā
š¹It is far-fetched to imagine Donald Trump hosting a peace summit with Iran in his second term ā and even more so that the Islamic Republic would be receptive to such a move. But it is harder to imagine a world in which such a conversation could be avoided any longer. Given Trumpās limited options ā and as unthinkable as it may seem ā the US-Iran drama is reaching its final conclusion in this new presidency.
