On May 25, President Donald Trump excitedly declared that a nuclear deal with Iran was just around the corner. Three weeks later, the president is noticeably more sanguine about reaching an agreement. “Iran is acting much differently in negotiations than it did just days ago,” Trump commented to Fox News this week. “Much more aggressive.” 

The negative vibes extend to the Iranian side. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, still stung by his experience in 2018, when Trump pulled the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, and re-imposed additional sanctions on Iran, is giving lectures that trusting the Americans is a fool’s errand. 

Recommended Stories

• On reconciliation, the Senate can make or break the deficit
• The GENIUS Act is key to protecting your wallet and preserving the dollar
• It's now or never to reform US counterintelligence

All of this is occurring at a time when the Iran hawks in Washington are trying to pressure the White House to ditch the negotiations and throw their support behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bid to use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Politico reported this week that conservative talk show host Mark Levin, whose feed on X is generally one long doom-scroll about Iran’s nuclear program, pushed Trump into approving a U.S. military operation against Iran during a private lunch at the White House. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson then pushed back against Levin in a long social media post.

These tensions reflect the fact that Trump is now waging two Iran-related battles simultaneously: one against Iran, and the other against competing camps of advisers. The second battle shouldn’t be cast away as the typical Washington-style palace intrigue, because depending on who wins Trump’s ear, the U.S. will either continue the diplomatic process or sacrifice diplomacy for a war that could very well get out of control.

Unfortunately, the slower the negotiating process becomes, the more ammunition folks like Levin have to press their case. And negotiations are slow-going right now. Despite five rounds of talks thus far, the fundamental question that will make or break the talks — whether Iran will be permitted to continue enriching uranium on its own soil — remains unresolved. On this point, Washington and Tehran remain at loggerheads. Trump has repeatedly stressed that Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium, while the Iranians insist on some form of enrichment as a red line. 

Further complicating matters, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in May that Tehran has increased its stockpile of 60%-purity enriched uranium by nearly 50% since February. The hawks claim that this is proof positive that Khamenei is making a bolt toward a nuclear bomb. In reality, it’s a negotiating tactic by the Iranians designed to send a message: if you don’t strike an acceptable deal, then you should expect the centrifuges to keep working at a high rate.

Where do we go from here? This very loaded question depends on several factors.

First, will Trump be willing to decide that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all? In other words, will Trump accept the fact that he’s not going to get everything he wants?

Second, will Trump be willing to resist those U.S. and Israeli hardliners who want the diplomatic process to collapse and for the military option to rise in its place? Again, Trump should not allow the naysayers to deter him from striking a deal with Iran that is imperfect but good enough. Fortunately, Trump has proven more impervious to audience complaints than his predecessors — it’s difficult to see Biden, for instance, dropping sanctions on Syria despite Israeli objections as Trump did.

THE LEFT PROVES THAT WE NEED MASS DEPORTATIONS

Ultimately, the key question here is whether Trump wants to hold true to the foreign policy narrative that got him elected last year. Trump owes at least some of his political comeback to his contention that the U.S. has entered too many “stupid” wars of choice that should never have been fought. Bombing Iran’s nuclear program would be a similar war of choice.

One thing is for certain: both sides of the Iran debate will get louder in the coming weeks.