Washington– The recent statements of US President Donald Trump on the Iranian nuclear file sparked widespread confusion in the foreign policy in Washington, as Trump made conflicting positions, which seemed contradictory to each other, creating a state of ambiguity about his actual orientations towards the Iranian nuclear file.
In an interview with the “Meet The Press” program on the “NBC” network, Trump said he was seeking to “completely dismantle the Iranian nuclear program”, and repeated his desire to re -impose the maximum sanctions, a position that appeared contrary to previous statements, and what was issued by his presidential envoy to negotiate with Iran, Stephen and Wetkov.
The Trump team’s decision deepened to postpone the next negotiating round with Tehran, which was interpreted as floundering in dealing with this sensitive file.
Full dismantling or partial agreement?
Some political psychologists believe that Trump’s negotiating style is based on providing extreme demands, refusing to make concessions, and putting contradictory positions, with a rapid change in opinion and aggressive and impulsive behavior, in an attempt to create additional pressure on the opposite party.
Trump was asked in the same interview whether his goal was to “limit the Iranian nuclear program or completely dismantle it”, and he categorically replied: “complete dismantling”, stressing that this is the only option that is acceptable to him.
advertisement
This position is away from the opinions of some of its advisers who prefer to keep a limited civilian nuclear program for Tehran, in order to avoid any military escalation, or a substitute for launching Israel.
The circles surrounding Trump are divided into the future of the Iranian nuclear program. While a current is pushing to accept a modified deal similar to the nuclear agreement signed by the administration of President Barack Obama in 2015, others insist on excluding any agreement without fully dismantling the program.
The envoy, Witkeov, had previously stated that Iran “does not need to be enriching exceeding 3.67%”, in reference to the commitment stipulated by the previous nuclear agreement, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, and Iran kept it for some time despite Washington’s withdrawal.
Although he described the previous nuclear agreement as “the worst deal ever”, Trump recently returned to say that he does not mind supporting prosperity and luxury of the Iranian people if Tehran is committed to not developing a nuclear weapon.
Also, he did not show opposition to the idea of Republican Senator Marco Rubio, and to allow Iran to have a civilian nuclear energy, provided that low -fertilizer uranium is imported instead of producing it locally.
But Trump later returned to doubt the justifications for Iran’s nuclear energy, saying in a remarkable statement: “They have a lot of oil, why do they need nuclear energy?”, Warning that civil use may be a cover for the development of a nuclear weapon, which “leads to military wars”, as he put it.
Israeli pressure to tighten the situation
The pressures were escalated by the pro -Israel lobbies on the Trump administration to urge him to adhere to the option of “complete dismantling” the Iranian nuclear program.
“President Trump made it clear that what is required is to dismantle the entire program, including stopping enrichment, preventing the re -processing of plutonium, and abandoning any nuclear receipt systems,” said President Trump, adding that any agreement should ensure the impossibility of Iran’s resumption of its nuclear program after Trump leaves his position.
advertisement
For her part, Andrea Strechrchr, Deputy Director of the Nuclear Proliferation Program in the same institution, supported the hardline situation, and considered that “the achievement of a complete, verified and permanent nuclear disarmament from Iran requires reliable military support by Trump, as well as tightening economic sanctions.”
Dismantling Iranian rejected
However, this option is met with great rejection from the Iranian side, and it is considered by international experts, such as Aaron David Miller, a former US State Department official and researcher at the Carnegie Foundation, who said on the “X” platform: “Trump’s comments indicate that there is no possible deal but to end the fertilization, and this means in practice the absence of a deal.”
As for the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Policy Program at the Association of Weapons Limiting Kelissi Davbourt, she said in an interview with Al -Jazeera Net that “the demand for a complete dismantling similar to the Libyan model is unrealistic and unnecessary,” noting that this offering “sends a message that the United States is not serious in reaching a mutual agreement with Tehran.”
Iranian accusations against Israel
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqji accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “a dragging of Washington into a new catastrophe in the Middle East” and interfering in US internal policies.
In a tweet posted on the “X” platform, Araqji said that “Netanyahu is interfering directly in the US government to push it into a new catastrophe in the region,” warning of “any mistake against Iran.”
Araqji attached his tweet to a post, re -published by Trump’s son, Donald Junior, which includes statements from a Republican activist and close to the Defense Defense Foundation, in which he called for “the failure of any potential agreement with Iran”, and accused the Wittouf team of seeking to soften the administration’s position towards Tehran, contrary to the desire of Trump.