Tensions between the United States and Iran have increased as Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected a diplomatic proposal from President Donald Trump. As part of the proposal, Trump called for uranium enrichment to be heavily minimized and only conducted under international scrutiny.

This contradicts statements by White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have asserted that all enrichment efforts must be halted.

While Trump has the ultimate say, these contradictions may undermine the strength of U.S. negotiations with Iran. The proxy terror state, with its newfound diplomatic flexibility, has now declared that uranium enrichment will continue.

U.S. foreign policy, spearheaded by Trump’s overarching view of peace through strength, ought to negotiate more forcefully, considering our position in the world. Iran, with uncontrolled inflation, three-quarters of its population below the poverty level, and an economy in the dumps, can only puff itself up as much as American foreign policy indiscretion allows. 

Trump should not deal as though Iran is on equal footing with the United States of America, in negotiations or by any other metric. As Iranian officials defy calls to cease uranium enrichment, the United States may have a solution to the ayatollah’s power posturing: Israel. 

Trump had opposed a potential strike by Israel because he believed a deal would be achieved with Iran, stating, “I told [Netanyahu] this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution now.” However, in the face of crumbling negotiations, Trump could reconsider whether to use Israel’s threats to achieve what he wants. 

Part of Trump’s foreign policy success is his perceived unpredictability in foreign affairs. He could achieve his peace through strength ideals by informing Iran that unless all uranium enrichment ceases, he will encourage Israel to make targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear production. 

This solution could appease both the isolationist and interventionist wings of the administration. Meaningful deterrence would be achieved, but through a proxy and not the U.S. directly. 

Regardless of whether Israel is utilized as a proxy deterrent to Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. foreign policy and negotiation with Iran should be based on reality. While the radical Islamist state possesses deep weaknesses, it is still a dangerous threat. 

To suppose that nuclear technology is needed for civilian use in a country with one of the largest oil and natural gas reservoirs on the planet is naive. Iran has been explicit about its hatred for Israel and the West, and approaching the state as a good-faith negotiating partner can only be detrimental to the U.S. and our allies.

READ MORE from Andrew Gondy:

Trump’s Populist Immigration Stance Is Emboldening Countries Worldwide

‘These Are Strong People’: Judaic Studies Director Calls for Jewish Resolve After Terror Attack