Witkoff indicates U.S. is open to letting Iran keep its nuclear program

Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration’s Middle East envoy, suggested in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the Trump administration may be open to compromises that would allow Iran to keep its nuclear program, ahead of talks set to begin this weekend.

The position would mark a retreat from public rhetoric by President Donald Trump demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program but is consistent with Witkoff’s own past comments suggesting he’s open to a deal that would place limits and verification on it instead — an approach similar to the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that Trump pulled out of in his first term.

The comments are likely to further alarm anti-Iran lawmakers and experts concerned about Witkoff’s role as the U.S.’ chief negotiator with the Islamic Republic and who have insisted that no deal short of full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program is acceptable.

Witkoff told the Wall Street Journal that the Trump administration’s “position begins with dismantlement of your program” but also said that its “red line will be, there can’t be weaponization of your nuclear capability.” Preventing weaponization would not necessarily entail eliminating the nuclear program.

Iran is not expected to agree to dismantle its nuclear program voluntarily.

The opening demand to eliminate the nuclear program “doesn’t mean, by the way, that at the margin we’re not going to find other ways to find compromise between the two countries,” Witkoff said, saying that a deal would require verification measures to monitor whether Iran is building nuclear weapons, a similar formulation as the JCPOA.

He told the Wall Street Journal that it would be up to Trump to decide how to proceed if Iran refuses the opening demand to eliminate its nuclear program. Witkoff said the purpose of this weekend’s meeting is “about trust building” rather than determining terms of a deal.

“It’s incredibly puzzling, and dangerous, that the day before talks even commence that Witkoff would already publicly concede that although the administration’s opening position is dismantlement its ‘red line’ is weaponization,” Michael Makovsky, the CEO of the hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Jewish Insider. “Witkoff suggests the administration might accept a much weaker deal than Obama concluded — a deal that President Trump correctly lambasted and withdrew from.”

“Does that mean Iran can keep all its highly enriched fuel that has it on the verge of nuclear breakout? Its ballistic missiles?” Makovsky added. “Even Obama went into talks demanding no enrichment, though conceded breakout capability by year 13.”

He said he’s hopeful that Witkoff misspoke and that the administration will “correct the record and publicly reaffirm that U.S. policy actually remains complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“The alternative would be a disaster for U.S., and Israeli, security interests, and would not only embolden Iran but China, which would gain from a weak America, and Israel will have to decide soon whether it must act alone militarily to prevent a nuclear Iran,” Makovsky continued.

Dana Stroul, the director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Biden administration Pentagon official, called Witkoff’s comments “another unfortunate unforced error. “There was no need for Witkoff to negotiate himself down to a redline that is basically the JCPOA before even arriving in Muscat,” the capital of Oman, where talks will be held, Stroul continued.

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in a post on X that Witkoff’s comments constitute “signaling that he is prepared to concede to Iranian demands.”

“A growing risk President Trump could sign a nuclear deal that leaves Khamenei’s nuclear weapons infrastructure intact — buried enrichment sites, stockpiles, advanced centrifuges, reactors, weaponization tech, long-range missiles,” Dubowitz added later in a separate post. “Any deal that retains this is fatally flawed.”

Dubowitz also said that any deal that only dilutes Iran’s nuclear stockpiles and ensures it is not weaponizing “is WORSE than Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal” and would be a “trap” by the Iranian government which Trump and Witkoff are “too experienced” to accept.

The American Jewish Committee, which opposed the JCPOA, said that any new deal “should address [the] fundamental flaws” of the JCPOA; namely that it failed to address ballistic missile development, it allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons later on, inspectors were not permitted to evaluate military sites and it did not address Iran’s support for terrorism.

“We support the administration’s stated objective of ‘fully dismantling’ Iran’s nuclear weapons program and urge the administration to maintain heavy sanctions pressure to achieve that outcome as well as cutting off support for the regime’s network of proxy forces,” the AJC statement reads, adding that Israel and other regional partners must be included in the decision-making process.

It also called for the U.S. to continue to move forward with talks with European allies about triggering snapback sanctions on Iran at the United Nations.