US President Donald Trump is open to meeting with Iran‘s supreme leader or president if a nuclear agreement is achieved, but he is equally prepared to take military action against the Islamic Republic if negotiations fail.
In an interview with Time Magazine, conducted on Tuesday and published on Friday—just before the US begins its third round of talks with Iran in Oman—Trump revealed the starkly contrasting scenarios he is considering. He seemed to confirm reports that Israel proposed a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear program to the US instead of pursuing diplomatic solutions, although he clarified that the portrayal of the discussions, with the US preventing an Israeli attack, was somewhat inaccurate.
‘I didn’t stop them,’ Trump stated. ‘But I didn’t make it easy for them, because I believe we can reach an agreement without resorting to military action,’ he continued. ‘Ultimately, I would leave that decision to them, but I expressed a strong preference for a deal over military strikes,’ he added.
Nevertheless, Trump indicated that he ‘might proceed very willingly if a deal cannot be reached.’ ‘If we fail to secure an agreement, I will be at the forefront of military action,’ Trump told Time Magazine.
Following a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, Trump issued a statement affirming that he and Netanyahu were in complete agreement regarding Iran. However, reports from Israeli media have hinted at underlying tensions.
On Friday, Channel 12 news in Israel reported that the country views the nuclear negotiations as being ‘very, very advanced’ and expressed concerns that the US might agree to a ‘bad deal’ with Iran.
While the Trump administration has fully supported Israel’s military actions in Gaza, it has already rejected an Israeli request for an increased US troop presence in northeast Syria.
US military resources in the region
Trump’s recent interview with Time Magazine highlights his unpredictable nature, which he claims is essential for effective negotiations.
In fact, Trump has been deploying US military resources to the region as part of a strategy to signal to Tehran that the US is ready for potential military action.
The United States has deployed B-2 bombers to the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean and has also sent two aircraft carriers to the area. Concurrently, the US has intensified its airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen, a Shia militant group supported by Iran, which has been attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea associated with Israel, the US, and Europe, claiming to do so in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.
Analysts and diplomats suggest that the increased US military action is a direct message to Tehran. Recently, US forces targeted the Ras Isa oil terminal on Yemen’s western coast, resulting in the deaths of at least 74 individuals.
Additionally, the Wall Street Journal has reported that Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthis and supported by the UAE are contemplating a new offensive against Houthi positions, taking advantage of the US airstrikes.
However, the US is encountering pushback from Gulf allies regarding strikes on Iran, as Gulf monarchs have barred the US from utilizing their bases or airspace for such operations. Furthermore, President Trump’s planned visit to the Middle East from May 13-16 adds uncertainty to the timing of any potential military actions.
Trump is attempting to reconcile his assertive foreign policy stance with the isolationist sentiments he expressed during his campaign, vowing to conclude conflicts in the Middle East and Europe. This has led to some confusion.
Trump team changes its stance on nuclear enrichment
Notably, some of Trump’s staunch media supporters, such as conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson, strongly oppose military action against Iran. Recently, Carlson featured an interview with a former senior Department of Defense official, who he claimed was dismissed for being an impediment to US military action against Iran. Carlson stated earlier in April, ‘It’s evident that now is the worst time for the United States to engage in a military strike on Iran. We cannot afford it. Thousands of American lives would be lost, and we would ultimately lose the ensuing war. Nothing could be more detrimental to our nation.’
Additionally, senior officials within the Trump administration have provided varying perspectives on re-engaging with Iran. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy for the Middle East and a key global troubleshooter, suggested earlier this month that the US might permit Iran to enrich uranium at low levels.
However, after facing criticism from pro-Israel factions, he reversed his stance, asserting that Tehran ‘must cease and completely eliminate’ its nuclear enrichment program.
This week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the US could consider re-entering an agreement that allows Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program, provided it halts enrichment and sources it from abroad.
Rubio remarked in a podcast with the Free Press, ‘There’s a pathway to a civil, peaceful nuclear program if they desire one. However, if they continue to enrich, they would be the only nation in the world without a ‘weapons program’ yet still engaging in enrichment, which presents a significant issue.’
Countries such as Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands engage in uranium enrichment without pursuing a weapons program. The agreement referenced by the Trump administration resembles one established between the UAE and the US, which allows access to civilian nuclear technology.
Talks in Oman
However, experts believe it is improbable that Iran, with its population of 90 million, would consent to such terms. In a speech he was scheduled to deliver at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, which was ultimately cancelled, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that Iran should not be regarded as an exception within the global non-proliferation framework.
He asserted the importance of recognizing Iran’s rights as a signatory to the NPT, including the right to produce fuel for its nuclear power facilities. This statement was shared on X and pertains to the long-standing Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
In 2018, Trump exited the nuclear agreement that had been signed by the Obama administration three years prior, which had lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limitations on its nuclear activities. Following Trump’s withdrawal, Tehran adhered to the agreement for one year before reducing its compliance and increasing uranium enrichment.
Currently, Iran enriches uranium to 60 percent, significantly exceeding the 3.67 percent cap established in the 2015 agreement, yet still below the 90 percent level necessary for weapons-grade material. Israel has expressed a preference for the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program rather than conducting preemptive strikes.
Tulsi Gabbard, who serves as Trump’s director of national intelligence, is a prominent voice opposing a nuclear strike, particularly from the isolationist faction of the Trump administration. During a congressional hearing last month, which drew criticism from the pro-Israel lobby, Gabbard reiterated that US intelligence agencies do not believe Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear weapon.
She noted that ‘Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that was suspended in 2003.’ US officials have previously indicated that Iran could potentially enrich sufficient uranium for a nuclear weapon in approximately two weeks if it chose to do so.
The upcoming discussions in Oman are anticipated to be of a technical nature, with Witkoff expected to participate and Araghchi leading the Iranian delegation. Michael Anton, the State Department’s policy planning chief, will supervise the US technical team.
Discover more from Defence Talks | Defense News Hub, Military Updates, Security Insights
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
