IRAN's NUCLEAR DILEMMA /Trita Parsi & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Iran had shown rare flexibility in talks, signaling openness to U.S. businesses entering its economy — something not allowed under the Obama-era JCPOA. Negotiations were progressing until Trump adopted Israel’s hardline stance of “no enrichment at all,” effectively collapsing diplomacy.

Within Washington, two camps emerged: one favoring pragmatic engagement with Iran to reduce Middle East entanglements, and another — more traditional Republicans and many Democrats — insisting on isolating or toppling the Iranian regime entirely. Initially, Trump’s team avoided neocon figures like Bolton and Pompeo, raising Iranian hopes, but pressure from hawks like Rubio later influenced policy.

When Trump approved limited strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, he portrayed them as having “obliterated” Iran’s program to claim victory and move on. In reality, intelligence later showed that around 400 kg of nuclear material survived, and Iran had likely moved much of it beforehand. With IAEA inspectors expelled, the U.S. lost visibility into Iran’s activities, increasing the long-term risk.

Experts warned that the strikes may have backfired — damaging Iran’s civilian program while possibly motivating Tehran to pursue a secret, smaller weapons program that’s harder to detect. Internally, Iran’s leadership had long resisted building a bomb to avoid triggering a regional arms race, since nuclearization of its Arab neighbors would erode Iran’s conventional military advantage. But after the attacks, some Iranian officials began questioning whether that restraint had been a mistake.