Offering both carrots and sticks is standard procedure in diplomatic negotiations, but US President Donald Trump takes it to new heights. Whatever else he might prevaricate on, he has always been consistent on Iran, giving it two options: Either agree to a deal that assures the world you are not building a nuclear weapon and reap the rewards or face devastating military attacks. In short, prosper or perish.
Trump’s approach has brought Iran to the table as I had previously predicted on these pages. As late as February, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had proved resistant to Trump’s combination of threats and charm offensive, saying that Tehran would not talk to the US. But when Trump sent him a letter, he answered, and the negotiations between the two sides are now well underway. The first round happened in Muscat on 12 April, between Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and the next round is taking place today (19 April) in Rome.
Almost every time Trump is asked a question about Iran, he waves the carrot and the stick simultaneously. On 14 April, while hosting his El Salvadoran counterpart, Nayib Bukele, at the White House, Trump said Iran wanted to deal with the US but “they don’t know how,” while criticising the country for “tapping us along.” Although the talks have just begun, the president is already signalling his impatience.
Trump followed up with a standard offering of hell and heaven to Iran. “I want them to be a rich, great nation,” he said before shortly adding, “If we have to do something harsh, we will do it…. I am not doing it for us, I am doing it for the world.”
Iran would be making a grave mistake if it puts down threats of military action as mere bluffs. It appears that Trump is essentially honest about this question. He genuinely wants to avoid taking military action and prefers a peaceful course. But there is also no doubt that he will be ready to take military action if that fails. The president could be mercurial, and if Iran manages to upset him or make him feel like he is being played, for instance, by dragging the negotiations for too long without giving real concessions, he might opt for military strikes.
The same equation has technically always been in the works. During the 2013-2015 negotiations with Iran, President Obama, too, repeatedly said that military strikes on Iran’s nuclear programme could be an option if the talks fail. In September 2013, as he met Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said: “We take no options off the table, including military options,” enraging his Iranian interlocutors.
But Obama’s threats weren’t taken as seriously, especially after he didn’t take military action in Syria despite the Assad regime crossing his supposed red lines by reportedly using chemical weapons. Still in the hangover of Bush’s Iraqi adventure, the US was then reticent about military action. Despite all his opposition to the Obama-Iran negotiations, Netanyahu wasn’t necessarily in favour of military attacks either. After all, his own government had refused to take such action as had Israel’s previous prime minister, Ehud Olmert.
Different times
Things are now different in both Washington and Tel Aviv. As evident in his battering of Yemeni Houthis, Trump is not averse to taking military action. In fact, his preference for simple and clear messages could also translate to a penchant for kinetic action. The mood in the US is still against entangling the country in conflicts of the Middle East but nothing like the post-Iraq crippling syndrome exists now.
Even some Obama officials are stressing the need for military preparedness. His ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, recently wrote about a possible attack on Iran: “The timing, need, and opportunity may never be more compelling. And, arguably, a military option is more feasible now than at any time in recent decades.” And Richard Nephew, Obama’s sanctions czar and an architect of the 2015 deal with Iran, has called for the US to try diplomacy with Iran but also prepare for a military option.
For his part, Netanyahu was then at the beginning of his second term. He is now Israel’s longest-serving prime minister and one who has repeatedly fought for his political survival against his increasingly bitter domestic and international critics. He is on trial for bribery and corruption in Israeli courts while also wanted at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. He might see attacks on Iran as a legacy-building moment and an escape from his predicaments.
Robust military presence
Trump’s threats about military action have not been just rhetorical. There is now a more robust American military presence in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean than at most times in recent history. In March, the US moved six of its B-2 bombers to its base on Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean. It has a total of 19 of these heavy strategic bombers, and their incredible range means they can easily go to Iran and back. They have already shown their mettle in recent attacks in Yemen.
As first reported by the Saudi outlet Al-Hadath, the US has also dispatched its THAAD missile defence system, alongside Patriot batteries, to Israel. This is in addition to THAAD systems sent to Israel by Biden last year. The system showed its use by stopping Houthi missiles in December last year and, more recently, in March.
Relevant to military calculations of the US and Israel is the fact that Iran finds itself weakened in several ways. Its exchange of fire with Israel in 2024 ended up in the destruction of at least some of its air defence capacities, although the extent of this is highly debated.
More importantly, it has lost much of its network of allied militias, the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’, following Israel’s battering of Hezbollah and Hamas and the downfall of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah previously boasted about more than 100,000 missiles, which it pointed toward Israel. It now speaks openly of disarming itself to avoid more Israeli attacks.
Faced with such dire conditions, Iran has come to the negotiating table and is ready to give significant concessions. But it knows that having a transparently bad hand doesn’t make for a good negotiating tactic. It is thus trying to make its own threats and show that it is ready.
Iranian leaders have even considered ordering pre-emptive strikes on the base, a report in London’s Telegraph has alleged. Following the report, hardline outlets have published AI-generated videos of such attacks. One shows Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the aerospace commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), directing hits at Diego Garcia by Iran’s medium-range ballistic Khorramshahr missiles.
Another tactic is warning about the consequences of a broad conflagration. A talking head close to the regime recently warned that attacks on Iran could lead to a quadrupling of the oil prices, a global recession worse than 1929 and increased illegal migration to the US as a result. The last point shows an attempt at appealing to the priorities and sensibilities of Trump’s base.
Although these might come off as attempts in psychological warfare, they are not entirely empty threats either. If Iran is pushed into a corner, it could cause enough havoc in the region and beyond to make life harder for many constituencies.
Adverse consequences
Next month, President Trump will embark on his first foreign trip of his second term, likely visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These GCC allies of the US are focused on economic development, and they’ll likely also warn the US about the adverse consequences of attacking Iran. This also explains why they, alongside Bahrain and Egypt, have welcomed the talks in Muscat.
However, as wary as Trump will be about getting the US into one more Middle Eastern conflict, he won’t hesitate if he feels the talks aren’t going anywhere. His approach to Iran promises high rewards for the country, but it also has a huge amount of risk. Iran will have to work hard to avoid miscalculations.
