There\u2019s an old line, sometimes attributed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, that the best way to solve a difficult problem is to make it bigger. That might be the most generous interpretation of how the Trump administration is approaching its ongoing peace talks with Iran.<\/p>\n
Over the weekend, the news around the talks followed what has now become a familiar pattern. On Saturday, the two sides were reportedly close to a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz<\/a>, and lift the US blockade on Iran. Then on Sunday, President Donald Trump said he had told his negotiators \u201cnot to rush<\/a>\u201d into a deal. On Monday, the United States launched a new round of what it called \u201cself-defense strikes<\/a>\u201d in southern Iran. The current message from the White House<\/a> is that they\u2019re giving talks another few days, and continue to believe believe a deal is likely, but haven\u2019t taken a return to full-scale war off the table.<\/p>\n Then in a rambling Truth Social post<\/a> on Monday morning, Trump enlarged the problem by saying that it \u201cshould be mandatory\u201d that as part of any peace deal, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey sign on to the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations with Israel. This is unlikely: Saudi-Israeli cooperation against Iran has been the worst kept secret in the Middle East for years, but the international outcry over the war in Gaza has made it politically untenable for these countries to publicly embrace Israel. It\u2019s unclear just how seriously Trump will press for this, but the fact that at this phase in negotiations he\u2019s bringing up new demands sure to irritate his own allies, suggests he\u2019s not exactly desperate to wrap these talks up.<\/p>\n The fact that a deal still hasn\u2019t been signed \u2014 despite the fact that the underlying dynamics of the conflict haven\u2019t changed much since Iran and the United States signed the current ceasefire agreement in early April \u2014 as well as the fact that Trump seems to be expanding rather than narrowing his demands suggests two things that turn the recent weeks of negotiation reports on their head: First, Trump does not believe that he is losing this war. Second, he is still hoping to reach a mega-deal to reset the politics of the entire region.<\/p>\n Trump doesn\u2019t think he\u2019s losing<\/strong><\/p>\n Before the war began, Trump told a concerned Tucker Carlson that despite predictions warning that attacking Iran could destroy his presidency, he was confident everything would be okay \u201cbecause it always is.\u201d<\/a> The war certainly hasn\u2019t gone as easily as expected, but it\u2019s very possible Trump still believes he has the upper hand and that everything will work out.<\/p>\n Fears of an America First revolt by Trump\u2019s MAGA base also seem to have been overblown.<\/p>\n In his defense, the most dire predictions of economic turmoil made when the Strait of Hormuz was closed have not come to pass. Oil prices have been hovering around $100 a barrel and Americans are feeling the impact at the pump, but it\u2019s worth recalling that many energy experts were predicting $200 per barrel oil<\/a> by now if the strait were not opened. (There are a few explanations for this, but the main ones seem to be that the US and other non-Gulf producers have been able to export more oil than many anticipated<\/a>, while China has slashed its imports, relying on its substantial reserves. For all the reports of Chinese assistance to Iran\u2019s war effort, in this respect, Beijing may be doing more to help the United States.)<\/p>\n The crunch may still hit: There are global concerns about jet fuel supplies ahead of summer travel season, and the impact of the global fertilizer shortage on this planting season won\u2019t be felt for months. But for now, the US economy is not in full-blown crisis mode<\/a>, and Trump may feel he\u2019s proved the \u201cpanicans<\/a>\u201d wrong.<\/p>\n The war is broadly unpopular and a large majority of Americans say it has raised their cost of living, but according to a recent poll by the Eurasia Group\u2019s Institute for Global Affairs, 73 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump\u2019s handling of the situation<\/a>. Fears of an America First revolt by Trump\u2019s MAGA base also seem to have been overblown.<\/p>\n As long as US troops aren\u2019t being killed \u2014 and none have been since the ceasefire began \u2014 and the economic turmoil stays manageable, Trump may continue to believe that time is on his side. On the other hand, Iran\u2019s current leaders, who believe they can absorb more pain than the Americans and are even less sensitive to public opinion, probably believe that too. This is a recipe for stalemate.<\/p>\n In some respects, Trump has narrowed his goals for the war in Iran. Rather than pushing for caps on Iran\u2019s ballistic missile program or its support for regional proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah as he did in talks prior to the war, Trump now says the \u201cone thing<\/a>\u201d he thinks about is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.<\/p>\n But it would be difficult enough at this point just to get a deal over Iran\u2019s nuclear program that satisfies what appears to be Trump\u2019s main condition: that it be tougher than the deal Barack Obama negotiated in 2015<\/a>. Though the Iranians have reportedly agreed in principle to dilute or dispose of their stockpile of highly enriched uranium<\/a>, the White House is continuing to insist that the stockpile itself be turned over to the United States. \u201cNo dust, no deal,\u201d one official told Fox News<\/a>, referring to Trump\u2019s description of the stockpile as \u201cnuclear dust.\u201d That became a harder circle to square last week when Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a directive saying the uranium should remain on Iranian soil<\/a>.<\/p>\n The deal under discussion, according to most reports, simply starts a process of nuclear negotiations over a 60-day period<\/a> \u2014 which would at least lower the temperature, though it leaves the main sticking point unresolved and it\u2019s not hard to imagine the situation deteriorating again during that period.<\/p>\n However, his comments linking the Abraham Accords to the resolution of the Iran war suggest that Trump, who is reportedly \u201cbored\u201d by Iran<\/a> at this point, is thinking bigger. Trump has always expressed confidence that he alone can bring peace to the Middle East as a region, not just solve individual conflicts. Recall that when he announced his plan for ending the war in Gaza last September, he described it as a great day in the \u201chistory of civilization\u201d<\/a> that could bring \u201ceternal peace to the Middle East.\u201d In reality, it didn\u2019t even bring eternal peace<\/a> to Gaza<\/a>, but he may be hoping to finish the job now.<\/p>\n For the moment, we may be in a dynamic where the costs to Trump aren\u2019t high enough that he feels compelled to end the war quickly, but they\u2019re just high enough that he feels he needs a big win to justify them \u2014 whether that\u2019s a deal that demonstrably exceeds Obama or achieves his alleged dream of \u201ceternal peace.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"There\u2019s an old line, sometimes attributed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, that the best way to solve a…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":824200,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5],"tags":[16640,69,83,50,80,103,5805],"class_list":["post-824199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-world","tag-defense-security","tag-donald-trump","tag-iran","tag-news","tag-politics","tag-world","tag-world-politics"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116643366475832170","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=824199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/824199\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/824200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=824199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=824199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=824199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}