Trump Delays Iran War Decision: Two Weeks for Diplomacy or Strikes? Amidst escalating Israeli-Iranian conflict, President Trump announced a two-week timeframe to decide on potential US military intervention. He cited a "substantial chance" for diplomatic resolution, tempering fears of immediate war with Iran. The decision hinges on ongoing negotiations and the risk of regional escalation
Amidst escalating Israel-Iran conflict, President Trump's measured response to potential US military intervention offers a glimmer of hope for de-escalation. However, analysts warn of dire consequences: Iranian attacks on American targets could trigger devastating retaliation, while a full-scale military intervention risks widespread chaos and instability in the Middle East, potentially impacting the global economy. The path to peace hinges on swift, effective negotiations, but Trump's past unpredictability and openness to hawkish advisors raise concerns about a lasting resolution. US-Iran tensions, nuclear proliferation, and the potential for regional war remain critical concerns
Trump's Iran decision: Delay, flip-flops, or decisive action? Facing pressure to strike Iran, President Trump may postpone a decision indefinitely, mirroring his fluctuating tariff policy, derisively dubbed "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO) by critics. This indecisiveness, influenced by conflicting advisor opinions, risks escalating tensions with unpredictable consequences for the global economy and Middle East stability. However, advocates for joint US-Israeli action cite Iran's nuclear program, pushing for immediate intervention. A lasting de-escalation depends on rapid, productive negotiations
Preventing a US-Iran war requires immediate diplomatic success. Advocates for joint US-Israeli military action cite Trump's and past presidents' pledges to block Iran's nuclear weapons program, alongside Iran's advanced uranium enrichment. However, de-escalation depends on swift, productive negotiations leading to sustained US-Iran dialogue
Trump's stance on Iran: Despite calls for de-escalation, the President's openness to hawkish viewpoints, including his recent dismissal of U.S. intelligence assessments on Iran's nuclear ambitions, raises concerns about escalating US-Iran tensions. This follows Israel's claims of Iran's imminent nuclear threat, a claim disputed by most American officials and independent analysts. The potential for military conflict and its global implications remain significant
US-Iran Relations: Navigating Nuclear Talks Amidst Israel-Iran Conflict. The complex diplomatic situation requires simultaneous resolution of the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict and meaningful negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. European and Arab mediators face the challenge of de-escalating the war while fostering trust for substantive nuclear talks between the US and Iran. A successful outcome hinges on limiting the conflict and establishing a clear path towards a lasting compromise on Iran's nuclear ambitions
Rebuilding US-Iran trust is crucial to prevent further escalation after recent attacks. Experts say both nations must prioritize diplomacy and de-escalation to avoid a wider Middle East conflict and stabilize the global economy. Successful negotiations are key to achieving lasting peace
De-escalating US-Iran Tensions: Direct Talks Key to Avoiding War. Expert Suzanne DiMaggio urges immediate face-to-face negotiations to prevent further escalation of the conflict, recommending US assurances against military intervention in Israel's campaign. This crucial step could pave the way for lasting peace and prevent a wider Middle East war
US-Iran Conflict: Negotiation Leverage—A Missed Opportunity? Experts warn against failing to utilize significant US negotiating power to de-escalate tensions and prevent a wider Middle East conflict
Despite limited direct communication, the U.S. and Iran relied on Arab and European intermediaries to convey messages, a crucial aspect of de-escalation efforts amidst rising Middle East tensions
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy's Washington D.C. meetings with US officials, including special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, focused on averting further Iran conflict. Subsequent Geneva talks between Lammy, French and German ministers, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi yielded a statement praising US efforts towards a negotiated solution and expressing commitment to future discussions. This diplomatic push comes amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran, highlighting the urgent need for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution
Iran Nuclear Deal: Trump Administration Explores Interim Agreement After Araghchi-EU Talks. Following discussions between Iranian official Araghchi and European counterparts, the Trump administration may pursue an interim agreement on Iran's nuclear program, potentially involving significant concessions. This development follows Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the previous Iran nuclear deal
US holds significant negotiating power in Iran conflict; failing to leverage it would be a major mistake
Netanyahu's Stance on Iran: Will Israel's Attacks Derail US-Iran Talks? Amid rising tensions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish stance on Iran threatens nascent US-Iranian diplomatic efforts. His pursuit of US involvement in an Israeli military campaign against Tehran, coupled with continued Israeli attacks, raises concerns of escalation. General Erik Kurilla's oversight of increased US military assets in the region further fuels speculation of imminent US action, despite President Trump's cautious approach. Will diplomacy prevail, or will Netanyahu's actions trigger a wider Middle East conflict?
Despite escalating tensions, further diplomatic negotiations remain a possibility, proceeding incrementally
“While an outright end to Israeli aggression may be an unrealistic condition to meet upfront, a calibrated, face-saving step by the U.S. that signals restraint and some economic relief could perhaps get Iran to the table — especially if mediated through trusted regional actors,” said Abdullah Baabood, a visiting professor of international studies at Waseda University in Japan. He suggested Washington could unfreeze some Iranian economic assets abroad, allow the country to export more oil or provide private and public commitments that the U.S. seeks deescalation and will not allow Israel to strike sensitive Iranian nuclear facilities like the Fordow enrichment plant.
Middle Eastern governments that are passing messages between Tehran and Washington, like Baabood’s native Oman, are extremely keen to prevent a U.S. strike on Iran, he told HuffPost.
“Gulf leaders … fear a full-blown war far more than they dislike Tehran. A limited U.S. strike would almost certainly provoke retaliation — not just symbolic, but escalatory,” Baabood said. It is widely believed Iran could respond to America entering the war by targeting U.S. military bases in the region, in Persian Gulf states or Iraq, or disrupting energy trade routes that regional economies rely on.
“Most regional actors believe escalation is more probable than containment if the first missile is launched. The region is bracing not just for a confrontation but for its long tail of chaos, and doing all it can, particularly through Oman and Qatar, to prevent that first step,” Baabood continued.
Popular dynamics in both Iran and the U.S. will be important factors in the prospects for peace, and in shaping any settlement.
Without “a groundswell of anti-war sentiment” in the U.S., “the war machine just grinds on,” said Narges Bajoghli, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. “Trump is not going in [to Iran] like he thought he would on Wednesday and Thursday because his base turned on him. We have to wait and see if that movement grows.”
Right-wing commentators like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have notably been urging Trump to be wary of joining Netanyahu’s offensive. To some extent, the U.S. is, of course, already involved in the war: American forces are helping shoot down Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel and Israel’s continued attacks rely on the assumption that the U.S. will eventually replenish its stocks of weaponry.
In Iran, meanwhile, the expansion of Israeli attacks to civilian neighborhoods has bolstered the sense, even among skeptics of the repressive government, “that they are in this larger regional war,” she said. That will likely shrink the chances that Iran will agree to fully abandon nuclear enrichment, as some hawkish voices in Israel and the U.S. desire.
“There was an almost zero chance … now it’s a negative chance,” Bajoghli continued.
“They’re not going to accept disarmament just because of their own knowledge of Iran’s history and Israel’s track record and America’s track record,” she said, pointing to Trump and President Joe Biden arming Israel over the last two years as it launched devastating wars in Gaza, where killing of Palestinians is ongoing, and Lebanon, while also taking over parts of Syria.
Should Trump seek to avoid his presidency becoming defined by a catastrophic war, tolerating some level of Iranian uranium enrichment might be necessary. The willingness to do so could also be driven by the sense in Israel that it can no longer tolerate Iranian attacks, which have extended to hit sensitive locations like a major hospital, Bajoghli said, as Tehran has sought to “establish deterrence.”
For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can’t do this without you.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can’t do this without you.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
Even as an agreement may be preferable for all sides, the complex dynamics in negotiations mean they could easily fall apart, particularly amid deep distrust of Washington over the Gaza war and its policymaking in recent decades.
“All throughout the Middle East, there is no illusion any longer. You can’t even say rhetorically the U.S. can be a mediator. The U.S. has thrown all of its eggs in Israel’s basket,” Bajogjhli said. “And the U.S. has shown — before Trump — that negotiations and ‘deals’ don’t actually mean much. This is why the situation is like a firecracker; this is why it’s so dangerous.”
Source: Original Article