US-Iran Negotiations: A Potential Boon for Trump and a Setback for Putin

In a somewhat rare move, the Trump administration engaged directly with Iran on Saturday to discuss denuclearization. Presently, Iran is accumulating sufficient enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon monthly.

Previous administrations would have never imagined initiating direct talks with a contentious state like Iran so early in a new term. They typically favored a more gradual, bureaucratic approach involving preliminary discussions and strategies designed to shield the key players from any fallout if the negotiations fell through.

Not Trump. He has always eschewed bureaucratic formalities, finding little interest in traditions and processes. And, as evidenced by the outcome of the Saturday meeting, his instincts may yet prove to be accurate.

Trump’s directive to Iran is clear: You possess no leverage. The pressure is mounting. Cease your nuclear pursuits, or face consequences.

To many observers, this seems like a demonstration of hard power, or the threat thereof, by someone with greater military might. Two US strike groups — including two carriers, 18 warships, and 30% of the stealth bomber fleet — have been repositioned to the region. Israel — which successfully conducted strikes on 20 Iranian locations in October 2024, incapacitating much of Iran’s air defenses — is also eager for additional strategic action.

However, what many analysts overlook is the multifaceted strategy Trump appears to be orchestrating on the global chessboard.

The prevailing narrative today centers around hard power (airstrikes), yet the more significant development may lie in a clever application of soft power that complements the threat of military force, potentially leading to further isolation of Iran.

This intricate chess game intriguingly commences with the armistice discussions in Ukraine. Currently, Trump is strategically positioned to facilitate a peace agreement that not only affirms Ukraine’s sovereignty and security with US “economic boots” deployed, but also navigates around anticipated maneuvers from Vladimir Putin.

Should Trump successfully achieve this, it would enable the US and the West to lift oil sanctions on Russia, allowing for a gradual reintegration of Russia into the Western economy.

However, a critical caveat remains. As scholar and commentator Haviv Rettig Gur notes, “In exchange, Russia must sever its ties with Iran” under the emerging strategy.

This proposition is quite logical: Russia stands to gain substantially more economically from a rapprochement with the West than from a frail military alliance with a beleaguered Iranian regime that primarily supports its imperial ambitions in Syria and Iraq.

Moreover, the US could effectively undermine the Iranian-Chinese axis of the “Axis of Autocrats” by sanctions against Iranian tankers that bypass export restrictions and transport oil to China. If properly enforced, these sanctions could halt the flow of Iranian oil to China in mere days.

Israel could also target those tankers with limited air strikes. Currently, Russia sells approximately half of its oil to China, and re-opening Western energy markets to Russia would serve to create a divide between Russia and China.

Meanwhile, Gur notes that Saudi Arabia is seeking a Senate-approved security defense pact with the US, along with an Israeli economic partnership, to help advance its Vision 2030 objectives, aiming to reduce its economy’s dependence on oil exports.

The Saudis are so eager for this security agreement that they’ve even promised Trump $1.4 trillion in investments over the next four years. The moderate Arab nations surely see a brighter future here, which presents the genuine possibility — if not likelihood — for a significant, pro-Western, pro-peace transformation of the Middle East.

Does this imply that the US military presence in the region is merely performative? Absolutely not; it remains a critical deterrent.

Iran has sponsored horrific attacks against innocent Israeli citizens via Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and has launched missile attacks against Israel in April and October of 2024.

There exists no legal bar to prevent Israel from retaliating by targeting Iran’s nuclear, energy, shipping, and drone operations, especially should disarmament discussions falter.

Israel possesses the military capability, agility, and proficiency to act independently if Trump grants the order — a likely scenario if talks fall short. Concerns regarding an Israeli assault on Iran’s energy sector and its ramifications for the global economy are largely overstated; nearly all of Iran’s 1.6 million barrels of daily oil exports are directed to a single purchaser — China.

If Iran aspires for peace, the Trump administration must demand not just complete and verifiable denuclearization, but also the disarming of all of Iran’s proxy forces. Iran understands it is a fragile entity — loathed by 80% of its populace, stranded with a faltering economy, and recognized globally as a yesterday’s genocidal, jihadist regime.

Nonetheless, a peaceful resolution can be achieved without any military action, provided the regime consents to legitimate peace and disarmament.

Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, a larger transformation appears to be in motion, influenced by Trump’s dismissal of the ineffective Obama/Biden appeasement approach and his vision for a regional reform.

If Trump can dismantle the Axis of Autocrats and establish a new pro-Western alliance with Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other moderate Arab states willing to invest in this forward-thinking vision, we may soon witness the most significant opportunity for enduring peace in the Middle East that our generation has ever encountered (Nobel Committee, are you paying attention?).