Donald Trump has generally been able to count on the loyalty of his Republican party. But a suggestion by his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, that Iran be allowed to keep part of its nuclear programme generated swift pushback.
“The only acceptable outcome is complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament,” read an open letter from Republicans in Congress, after Witkoff said on Monday that Tehran could be allowed to enrich uranium up to a 3.67 per cent level that is suitable for civilian but not military use.
Hawkish Republican senators, such as Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, also demanded full dismantlement of a programme that Iran claims is peaceful, but is thought to be on the threshold of being able to produce nuclear bombs.
Witkoff, who led a US delegation in talks with Iranian counterparts in Oman last week, appeared to U-turn in response. “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment,” he said.
On Thursday, Trump faced further dissent after The New York Times published a report alleging the White House had refused to back Israeli military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, preferring to seek a diplomatic solution first.
“It’s a serious error to signal … that military plans may be off the table,” said Mark Dubowitz, head of neoconservative think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Unless Iran’s leaders believe their regime is at risk, they will never agree to a deal that truly ends the nuclear threat.”
The White House is said to have divided into two camps over the best way to achieve its stated policy goal of ensuring Tehran never possesses a nuclear weapon.
One group, including Witkoff, Vice-President JD Vance, and influential TV host Tucker Carlson, favour negotiations with Iran that continue in Rome this weekend, fearing that war could put US soldiers in the firing line and play havoc with oil prices.
The other camp, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are doubtful that talks based on maximalist US demands can succeed – Iran has said it will not countenance fully dismantling its programme – and are sympathetic to Israel’s plans to strike Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
Trump has threatened to use force if diplomacy fails. “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said last month.
That threat has taken shape in the form of a US military build up on the island of Diego Garcia, ostensibly for the ongoing campaign against Iran-backed Yemeni militants, but within striking distance of Iran.
Ken Katzman, a former CIA analyst specialising on Iran, now at the Soufan Group think tank, suggests the White House split is partly over timing, with intelligence assessments showing Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.
“Iran is not judged to be weaponising, or making a detonation mechanism…so there is no urgency to bomb Iran’s programme,” he said. “If diplomacy fails we can always resurrect the military option.”
Israel, the primary target if Tehran was able to produce a bomb, feels more urgency, as do its staunch supporters in the US such as Rubio and Waltz, said Katzman, which also fuels the divide.
“It’s pro-Israel opinion versus those who are more skeptical of Israeli actions,” he said.
But while there is scope for Trump to resolve these differences amicably, he is under pressure to deliver a stronger deal than the JCPOA nuclear control agreement negotiated under under Barack Obama’s Presidency, which Trump withdrew from in 2018.
“He is going to get absolutely skewered if he tries to push a deal similar to the (Obama deal),” said Katzman. “The first question would be ‘why did you get out in 2018?’”
Michael Mulroy, who served as a senior official in the Department of Defense during Trump’s first term, said there is common ground between the camps but differences on strategy.
“The White House would prefer the diplomacy path to a new and revised nuclear agreement, which prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and provides sanctions relief to Iran (to) the military option which could see direct attacks on their nuclear facilities and lead to a broader conflict,” he said.
The more hawkish camp “want to start with a maximalist position to give them space to negotiate”, Mulroy added. “Secretary Rubio’s route is likely more effective.”
John A Parachini, who recently left the State Department for the Rand corporation think tank, agreed that internal differences could be resolved but suggested Israel’s actions could affect US plans: “The hard to determine player is Israel and Netanyahu’s role as Israel’s leader in this situation,” he said.
The Israeli prime minister has called for US support to “finish the job on Iran”, having inflicted damage on allied militias Hamas and Hezbollah, and Iran’s own air defences and missile installations in two direct exchanges of fire last year.
Amos Yadlin, former head of Israel’s military intelligence and now an advisor to Israeli officials, believes Netanyahu would accept a “gold standard” nuclear control deal that banned uranium enrichment and saw stockpiles moved overseas but fell short of full dismantlement.
Iran would be likely to baulk at such stringent conditions, but “if they see too many B-2 bombers in Diego Garcia they may be convinced”. He added: “It is the right opening position in negotiations.”
Raz Zimmt, an Iran researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), said Netanyahu is unlikely to pressure Trump by campaigning against his diplomacy, as he did with Obama, branding the 2015 deal a “historic mistake.”
The New York Times report highlighted Israel’s need for US support in any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Zimmt noted, with officials assessing that Israel’s plans could only set back Tehran’s programme by a year.
Israel would then “require an ongoing military or covert campaign to make sure Iran is not capable of reconstituting its programme”, he said.
Tehran has suggested a deal is attainable but not on the terms favoured by US and Israeli hawks.
Read Next
square IRAN–UNITED STATES RELATIONS
Read More
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said mixed messages from the US were “not helpful” but expressed confidence a deal could be reached on the basis of more flexible positions.
“If the US attends the next round of the talks with an approach similar to that of the Muscat talks, I believe reaching an agreement won’t take long,” he said, referring to talks with Witkoff in Oman last week. “But if they change their previous positions, it will be unconstructive and further complicate the negotiation process.”
Sina Toossi, an Iran specialist at the Center for International Policy in Washington, said Iran is open to diplomatic solutions but its position is “shaped by a deep and enduring distrust of US intentions, especially after Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA and the sweeping sanctions that followed”.
Tehran is open to diplomacy but “its flexibility has clear limits”, he said. “Demands for zero enrichment or sending all nuclear material abroad, at least to countries that aren’t friendly to Iran, are politically untenable for any Iranian government –reformist or hardline. Such terms are viewed domestically within the Islamic Republic’s body politic not as compromise, but as capitulation.”
