Offering both carrots and sticks is standard procedure in diplomatic negotiations, but US President Donald Trump takes it to new heights. Whatever else he might prevaricate on, he has always been consistent on Iran, giving it two options: either agree to a deal that assures the world you are not building a nuclear weapon and reap the rewards or face devastating military attacks. In short, prosper or perish.
Trump’s approach has brought Iran to the table as I had previously predicted on these pages. As late as February, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had proved resistant to Trump’s combination of threats and charm offensive, stating that Tehran would not engage in talks with the US.
But when Trump sent him a letter, he answered, and the negotiations between the two sides are now well underway. Three rounds have already taken place in Muscat and Rome between Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, and US Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt. The third round, held on 26 April, included technical negotiations for the first time. Both sides have stated that the rounds have been constructive, and while differences remain, they are both optimistic, albeit cautiously, about the possibility of a deal.
Almost every time Trump is asked a question about Iran, he waves the carrot and the stick simultaneously. On 14 April, while hosting his El Salvadoran counterpart, Nayib Bukele, at the White House, Trump said Iran wanted to deal with the US but “they don’t know how,” while criticising the country for “tapping us along.” Although the talks have just begun, the president is already signalling his impatience.
Trump followed up with a standard offering of hell and heaven to Iran. “I want them to be a rich, great nation,” he said before shortly adding, "If we have to do something harsh, we will do it.... I am not doing it for us, I am doing it for the world.”
More recently, Trump told Time Magazine that the US was going to “make a deal with Iran”, but also added that if the talks falter, the US would be “leading the pack” in bringing war against it.
Just how disastrous a war could be for Iran was on display on 26 April after horrifying explosions hit Rajaee port in southern Iran, where hundreds were injured or killed. Iranian society is in a state of shock and mourning. The economic cost will run to billions of dollars. The actual price tag will be even higher, as most of Iran's maritime trade is conducted through this port.
It remains unclear whether the explosion was an industrial incident or the result of foreign sabotage. But if there were to be Israeli and American air strikes in future, the effects would resemble what we saw on 26 April, only many times worse. It will involve massive destruction of Iranian infrastructure and Iranian lives.
Iran would be making a grave mistake if it puts down threats of military action as mere bluffs. It appears that Trump is essentially honest about this question. He genuinely wants to avoid taking military action and prefers a peaceful course. But there is also no doubt that he will be ready to take military action if that fails. The president could be mercurial, and if Iran manages to upset him or make him feel like he is being played, for instance, by dragging out the negotiations for too long without offering genuine concessions, he might opt for military strikes.
Read more: This time, Trump won’t let Iran run down the clock
The same equation has been technically in the works for a long time. During the 2013-2015 negotiations with Iran, President Obama, too, repeatedly said that military strikes on Iran’s nuclear programme could be an option if the talks fail. In September 2013, as he met Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said: “We take no options off the table, including military options,” enraging his Iranian interlocutors.
But Obama’s threats weren’t taken as seriously, especially after he didn’t take military action in Syria despite the Assad regime crossing his supposed red lines by reportedly using chemical weapons. Still in the hangover of Bush’s Iraqi adventure, the US was then reticent about military action. Despite all his opposition to the Obama-Iran negotiations, Netanyahu wasn’t necessarily in favour of military attacks either. After all, his own government had refused to take such action as had Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert.
Different times
Things are now different in both Washington and Tel Aviv. As evident in his battering of Yemeni Houthis, Trump is not averse to taking military action. In fact, his preference for simple and clear messages could also translate to a penchant for kinetic action. The mood in the US is still against entangling the country in conflicts of the Middle East but nothing like the post-Iraq crippling syndrome exists now.
Even some Obama officials are stressing the need for military preparedness. His ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, recently wrote about a possible attack on Iran: “The timing, need, and opportunity may never be more compelling. And, arguably, a military option is more feasible now than at any time in recent decades.” And Richard Nephew, Obama’s sanctions czar and an architect of the 2015 deal with Iran, has called for the US to try diplomacy with Iran but also prepare for a military option.
