Bomb Iran or meet the Ayatollah: Trump toys with disparate options ahead of nuclear talks

US President Donald Trump is prepared to meet with Iran’s supreme leader or president if a nuclear deal is reached, but he could just as easily "lead the pack" in bombing the Islamic Republic if his envoys come home empty-handed from negotiations. 

Trump divulged the wildly disparate options he is contemplating in an interview with Time Magazine conducted on Tuesday but published on Friday — one day before US officials are set to commence their third round of talks with Iran in Oman.

Trump appeared to de facto confirm reports that Israel floated a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear programme to the US instead of diplomacy, although he said the framing of discussions, with the US shutting down an Israeli attack, was not quite right.

"I didn't stop them,” Trump said. “But I didn't make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack,” he said.

"Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped,” he added.

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

However, Trump added he "may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal”.

"If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack," Trump told Time Magazine.

After a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, Trump released a statement saying he and his Israeli counterpart were fully aligned on Iran. 

However, Israeli media leaks have suggested tension.

On Friday, Israel's Channel 12 news reported that Israel believes the nuclear negotiations are “very, very advanced” and that the US could reach a "bad deal" with Iran.

While the Trump administration has provided full support for Israel's war on Gaza, the US already shot down an Israeli request for the US to keep more troops in northeast Syria, Middle East Eye previously revealed. 

Trump masses military assets

Trump’s interview with Time Magazine partly underscores his unpredictability, which the self-described dealmaker says is necessary at the negotiating table.

Indeed, Trump has been pouring US military assets into the region as part of a buildup intended to send a message to Tehran that the US is prepared for military strikes.

The US has massed B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. The US also has sent two aircraft carriers to the region.

Meanwhile, the US has been pummeling the Houthis in Yemen. The Shia armed group which is backed by Iran started attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea linked to Israel, the US and Europe in what the Houthis say was solidarity with besieged Palestinians in Gaza. 

The US has been ramping up air strikes on the Houthis in what analysts and diplomats say is an intended message to Tehran.

Last week, the US bombed Ras Isa oil terminal on Yemen’s western coast killing at least 74 people.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported that Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthis and backed by the UAE are considering launching a new offensive on Houthi territory, capitalising on the US strikes. 

But the US faces resistance from Gulf allies on striking Iran.

MEE revealed earlier this month that Gulf monarchs have prohibited the US from using their bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Trump's plans to visit the Middle East between 13-16 May also throw a wild card into the timing of potential strikes. 

Team Trump flip-flops on nuclear enrichment 

Trump is trying to square his muscular approach to foreign policy with the isolationism he tapped into on the campaign trail, promising to end wars in the Middle East and Europe. It has been confusing. 

Some of Trump’s closest media allies, like conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson, are adamantly opposed to attacking Iran.

This week Carlson ran an interview with a former senior Department of Defence official who he claimed was ousted because he was seen as an obstacle to the US bombing Iran. 

“It’s clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran,” Carlson wrote earlier in April.

“We can’t afford it. Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country,” he added.

Senior Trump administration officials have also offered differing terms for a return to a deal with Iran.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy who has emerged as his go-to global troubleshooter, suggested earlier this month that Washington would allow Iran to enrich uranium at low levels. After backlash from pro-Israel voices, he flipped, saying that Tehran “must stop and eliminate” its nuclear enrichment programme fully.

This week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the US could reenter a deal that sees Iran keep a civilian nuclear programme so long as it halts enrichment, and instead ships it in from abroad. 

“There’s a pathway to a civil, peaceful nuclear programme if they want one,” Rubio said in a podcast with the Free Press. “But if they insist on enriching, then they will be the only country in the world that doesn’t have a ‘weapons programme’, but is enriching. And so I think that’s problematic.”

Japan, Germany and the Netherlands are several countries that enrich uranium but do not have a weapons programme.

The agreement the Trump administration appears to be pointing to is similar to one that the UAE struck with the US for access to its civilian nuclear technology. However, analysts say it is unlikely that Iran, which boasts a population of 90 million people, would agree to that. 

Meeting in Oman

In a cancelled speech he was set to give at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference this week, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran “must not be treated as an exception within the global non-proliferation framework”.

“That includes recognition of our rights as a signatory to the NPT, including the ability to produce fuel for our nuclear power plants,” he wrote in the speech that was posted on X, referring to the decades-old Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). 

In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear deal signed three years earlier by the Obama administration. The agreement eased sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.

After Trump's pullout, Tehran complied with the agreement for a year before scaling back its compliance by ramping up uranium enrichment.

Iran currently enriches uranium up to 60 percent, far above the 3.67 percent limit in the 2015 deal but still below the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material.

Israel says that in place of preemptive strikes it wants the full destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme.

One of the voices against nuclear strike supported by the isolationist wing of the Trump administration is Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence.

In a congressional hearing last month that irritated the pro-Israel lobby, Gabbard reaffirmed that US intelligence agencies do not believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon, adding that “Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003”.

US officials have previously claimed that Iran could "probably" enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon within roughly two weeks if it wanted.

The talks in Oman are expected to be technical in nature.

Witkoff is expected to attend, while Araghchi will lead the Iranian side. State Department policy planning chief Michael Anton will oversee the US technical team.

middleeasteye.net