In Trumpworld, toppling rulers is taboo
BY THE TIME the Iran crisis ends, President Donald Trump risks breaking some solemn promises about war and peace. Large-scale American help to destroy Iran's deeply buried nuclear sites would imperil his pledge to keep America out of Middle Eastern conflicts. Yet if his caution allows a wounded Iran to successfully sprint for a bomb, that would challenge Mr Trump's stated belief that 'you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon'.
With so much at stake, it is tempting to dismiss one more area in which Mr Trump's reputation is at stake, namely, his vaunted prowess as a negotiator. Even as Iran and Israel exchange salvoes of missiles, Mr Trump keeps urging Iran's leaders to resume talks and cut a deal 'before there is nothing left'. That puts him at odds with Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who is openly rooting for the overthrow of the Islamic regime. In a televised address to the Iranian public, Mr Netanyahu declared that Israel's attacks are 'clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom'.
More on the war between Israel and Iran:
Yet Mr Trump is serious about getting Iran's leaders back to the negotiating table, say officials and diplomats who have watched him up close. He has a deep aversion to regime change. Days after his first victory in 2016 he announced a Middle Eastern policy focused narrowly on fighting terrorists, saying: 'We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.'
According to Reuters, a news agency, Mr Trump recently vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declaring political leaders off-limits unless Iran attacks American targets. That reflects a horror of creating power vacuums in dangerous places, rather than any love for hardline clerics. Mr Trump is a man with complicated views of war. He sees conflict as wasteful and often irrational, destroying lives and property. But he is willing to kill foreigners who threaten America, as when he sent drones to assassinate Iran's most important general, Qassem Suleimani, in Baghdad in January 2020. In the words of an insider: 'Trump hates war, but he's not afraid of it.'
A distaste for regime change sets Mr Trump apart from traditional conservative hawks. John Bolton was Mr Trump's national security adviser in 2018-19. Now a critic, he admits that he and his former boss did not agree on the likely endgame when in 2018 Mr Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, a multinational agreement to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions brokered by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Nor, Mr Bolton says, was Mr Trump bent on breaking the regime in Tehran when he replaced the JCPOA with a 'maximum pressure' campaign of harsh economic sanctions. 'I certainly thought that getting out of the JCPOA and maximum pressure were all logical steps towards the only strategy that can bring lasting peace in the Middle East, which is the overthrow of the ayatollahs in Iran,' Mr Bolton reports. 'He never got to that logical step.'
In time, Mr Trump fired Mr Bolton. Explaining that dismissal, Mr Trump grumbled that Mr Bolton had asked North Korea to surrender its entire nuclear-weapons programme before receiving American concessions. Specifically, Mr Trump said it was 'a disaster' that Mr Bolton had publicly called this the 'Libyan model'. North Korea reacted badly, possibly because after Libya's unilateral disarmament a NATO-led coalition bombed the country, leading to the toppling and killing of its dictator, Muammar Qaddafi.
In his first term, the closest that Mr Trump came to endorsing regime change was when he declared an opposition leader in Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, to be the country's legitimate president. He hinted that America might use force against Venezuela's thuggish left-wing ruler, Nicolás Maduro. In part, Mr Trump was trying to please anti-communist voters in Florida, suggests Mr Bolton. He concedes that his boss later lost confidence in Mr Guaidó, believing that he had been led to back 'the wrong horse'.
There are two pillars to Mr Trump's dislike of regime change, suggests Elliott Abrams, a veteran of several Republican administrations who served as special envoy to Venezuela and Iran during the first Trump presidency. First, Mr Trump is responding to policy failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, Mr Abrams believes that Mr Trump is influenced by Henry Kissinger and other cold-war practitioners of realpolitik. According to that school of statecraft: 'All of these countries, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, are black boxes and they have a person at the top, and you must negotiate with that person.' Mr Abrams calls this a 'club of leaders' view, which attaches little significance to ordinary citizens' wishes. In this worldview: 'We deal with people who've risen to the top of the greasy pole, no matter how they got there: by winning elections, by murdering people. It doesn't matter.'
Jaw-jaw, with added arm-twisting
In Mr Trump's first term some European allies mistook maximum-pressure sanctions on Iran as a 'stalking horse for regime change', says Brian Hook, America's Iran special envoy in 2018-20. They were mistaken: Mr Trump sincerely prefers dealmaking to conflict, he says. Mr Hook thinks that allies also underestimated the power of unilateral American sanctions to gravely weaken Iran's economy and its overseas armed proxies. If Mr Trump had secured a consecutive second term in 2020, 'the Iranians would eventually have had no choice but to call him and cut a deal', he argues.
Allies still struggle to understand Mr Trump. In places such as Europe, modern-day diplomacy is seen as a multilateral endeavour, needed to check aggression by rogue bullies. But Trumpian diplomacy is an expression of raw American power. Mr Trump could be a silk-coated potentate at the Congress of Vienna in 1814, carving up the world with fellow rulers, guided by the interests of great powers and a horror of disorder. Dealmaking may not save Iran's leaders, for events are moving fast. But if the regime falls, cheers in Mr Trump's White House will be tinged with alarm.
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
NSA Ajit Doval plans China visit with tough message on terror
National security adviser ( NSA ) Ajit Doval is planning a China trip next week, his second to the northern neighbour since December, with an eye on delivering a tough message on terror and discussing measures on stabilising bilateral ties. While the occasion will be a meeting of NSAs in preparation for the early September Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in China, Doval is expected to engage with his counterparts from China and Russia among others. It is not yet known if Doval's Iranian counterpart will be part of the SCO meeting. The NSA could also meet his counterparts from Central Asian states who are members of the SCO. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Simple Morning Habit for a Flatter Belly After 50! Lulutox Undo All eyes will be on his meeting with the Chinese foreign minister and his counterpart as special representative, Wang Yi, in the backdrop of the India-Pakistan conflict and China's military support to Pakistan. Doval will deliver a strong message on cracking down against terror infrastructure and proxies, ET has learnt. Discussions could also focus on China's request for resumption of direct flights. After Operation Sindoor, India delivered a strong message to China on cross-border terror infrastructure and Pakistan's complicity in the Pahalgam attack. Doval had spoken to Wang Yi within hours of cessation of hostilities. There are reports that Wang Yi could also visit India in the near future. Live Events Ahead of Doval's trip, intense negotiations are ongoing on references to condemnation of the Pahalgam terror attack in the SCO NSA joint statement, ET has learnt. The SCO traditionally has a strong focus on countering terror and has a special anti-terror unit: the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure or RATS. While India has requested that the NSA meeting have references in the outcome statement condemning the Pahalgam terror attacks, Pakistan is pitching for inclusion of references to the Jafar express hijacking and an attack on a bus by Baloch rebels, ET has learnt. The Pahalgam terror attacks and Jafar express incident cannot be compared, a source said, adding, India is unnecessarily being dragged into Pakistan's internal matters. The SCO NSA meeting will also enable to firm up the security-related agenda of the SCO summit planned for early September.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tulsi Gabbard makes U-turn, backtracks on Iran nukes, now claims regime could build bomb in a matter of weeks
Tulsi Gabbard warns Iran could build nuclear weapon 'within weeks' after earlier denying threat- Tulsi Gabbard has issued a sharp warning that Iran could potentially produce a nuclear weapon 'within weeks.' This comes just months after she testified before Congress claiming Iran was not building such weapons—though she now says her earlier comments were taken out of context. The sudden shift in Gabbard's public position has added fuel to an already heated debate in Washington, as tensions with Iran rise following Israeli airstrikes and threats of further US involvement. With top US intelligence agencies, Israeli officials, and Iran's own statements clashing, questions are growing about how close Tehran really is to developing a nuclear weapon. Why did Tulsi Gabbard change her position on Iran's nuclear threat? In March, Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran was not actively building nuclear weapons, citing US intelligence that the country's stockpile of enriched uranium was growing, but not yet weaponized. She pointed out that Iran's stockpile was 'unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons' but insisted there was no clear evidence of weapon development. Now, she says the situation has drastically changed. In a social media post this week, Gabbard stated, 'US intelligence shows Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months.' She added that President Trump 'has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Live Events Gabbard also claimed her March testimony was misrepresented by what she called the 'dishonest media,' and posted the full video of her remarks to offer context. What is the US intelligence community saying about Iran's nuclear capability? The Intelligence community has supported Gabbard's clarification, stating that her earlier remarks were 'selectively edited' and misunderstood. Intelligence agencies have now reportedly concluded that Iran's enriched uranium levels—and related capabilities—have reached a point where a weapon could be built in 'a matter of weeks.' This assessment aligns with President Trump's own warning. On Thursday, Trump said Iran had 'a tremendous amount of material' and was potentially just 'months, if not weeks' away from a nuclear weapon. He also issued a sharp deadline, stating that Iran had a 'maximum of two weeks' to come to the negotiating table before the US considered joining Israeli strikes. What triggered the sudden urgency over Iran's nuclear program? Rising violence in the Middle East has escalated global concerns. On June 13, Israel launched a major airstrike campaign on Iranian military and nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacks 'targeted the heart of Iran's nuclear program.' The strikes reportedly killed senior Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran's Health Ministry confirmed at least 430 deaths, while the Human Rights Activists News Agency reported an unofficial death toll of 657. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks that killed 25 people in Israel, including one man who died from a heart attack during the strikes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had already flagged concerns earlier this month, warning that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium is at its highest level ever. Though enriched uranium can be used for civilian nuclear energy, it's also the main ingredient for building a nuclear bomb when highly refined. Is Iran willing to negotiate a new nuclear deal with the US? Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that Tehran remains open to talks. 'We are absolutely ready for a negotiated solution,' he stated. However, he stressed that diplomacy is impossible while Iran is under military attack. 'We cannot go through negotiations with the US when our people are under bombardment,' he said. Iran has always claimed its nuclear program is peaceful. Since the 2015 nuclear deal—also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—Tehran has said it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. However, that agreement fell apart after the US, under Trump's first term in office, withdrew in 2018. Talks had resumed earlier this year, but were disrupted by the Israeli strikes. Could the US be preparing for military action alongside Israel? Within Trump's 'America First' movement, internal disagreements are rising over whether the US should escalate militarily. Some of his closest allies argue for direct involvement, while others warn against deeper entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts. Despite the division, Trump has remained firm. 'Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon under any circumstances,' he told reporters on Friday. He did not rule out a joint strike with Israel if no deal is reached soon. For now, the world waits. With a rapidly narrowing window for diplomacy, and with deaths mounting on both sides, all eyes are on Tehran and Washington as the next critical weeks unfold. FAQs: Q1: Can Iran build a nuclear weapon soon according to Tulsi Gabbard? Tulsi Gabbard says Iran could produce one within weeks. Q2: What is Trump's deadline for Iran's nuclear talks? President Trump gave Iran two weeks to reach a deal.
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel-Iran War: 400+ Iranians killed, UN warns of refugee crisis; Tel Aviv strikes Isfahan nuclear plant for 2nd time
Israel-Iran Conflict: As the military tensions between Israel and Iran entered its ninth day, Tehran said that more than 400 defenceless Iranians have been killed due to Israeli strikes, while the United Nations warned of another refugee crisis. Here is what you need to know about the ongoing Israel Iran war. The health ministry of Iran pegged the official death toll at over 400. 'As of this morning, Israeli attacks have claimed the lives of over 400 defenceless Iranians and left 3,056 others wounded by missiles and drones,' health ministry spokesman Hossein Kermanpour said on Saturday in an X post. On Friday, a US-based NGO named Human Rights Activists News Agency said that based on its sources and other reports, at least 657 people in Iran died due to the conflict, including 263 civilians. The UNHCR, the refugee agency of the United Nations, said Saturday that the Israel-Iran war must not be the reason for another refugee crisis, adding that once people flee it is difficult for them to go back. The intensity of the attacks between the two sides was already triggering population movements in both countries, the UNHCR said. 'This region has already endured more than its share of war, loss and displacement. We cannot allow another refugee crisis to take root,' UN high commissioner for refugees Filippo Grandi said. 'The time to de-escalate is right now. Once people are forced to flee, there's no quick way back — and all too often, the consequences last for generations.' Israel launched a second wave of strike at Iran's Isfahan nuclear facility overnight, targetting 'two centrifuge production sites', an Israeli officer said on Saturday. Speaking to reporters, the military official said, 'Isfahan we targeted in the first 24 hours of our operation, but we carried out a second wave of strikes there overnight, deepening our achievements and advancing the damage to the facility.' The repeated strikes by the Israeli military have 'dealt a severe blow to Iran's centrifuge production capabilities,' the official added. Isfahan, in central Iran, is known to have a uranium conversion facility which processes raw, mined uranium. The second strike on this nuclear site came shortly after the UN's atomic watchdog IAEA warned of a catastrophe if Israel attacked the southern nuclear site of Bushehr, which is the Middle East's first civilian nuclear reactor.
