US military officials say that if negotiations over a nuclear deal with Iran go south, they are ready to “become far, deep and bigger.” Meanwhile, Iranian troops are preparing for war. And while tensions between the two countries (three if Israel is included) are running high, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard has already told President Donald Trump that Iran is not building nuclear weapons.
US Special Envoy Steve Witkov and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragut held talks in Oman on Saturday. US officials described them as “productive,” and Iranian officials said they were “positive so far.”
On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegses said Fox News' “Trump is “dead” about Iran's ban on building nuclear weapons. Hegseth said his boss wanted the deal to be done peacefully, but he added that he was also open to doing it the hard way.
But he is also seriously dead that if he can't understand this at the negotiation table, there are other options to include my department to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb. We hope we never get there. We really do. What we do at Houthis and what we do in the area showed our ability to go far, go deeper and grow.
Trump has robbed many military threats to Iran.
In September, during his reelection campaign, he said that this could mean removing Iran's belligerence.
On March 30, he said, “If Iran doesn't make a deal, there will be bombings.”
Trump also threatened Iran earlier this month before approving an attack on Yemen's Houtis. He said:
All shots fired by Houthis are shots fired from Iranian weapons and leadership, so we move forward from this point. And Iran takes responsibility, suffers from consequences, and those consequences become disastrous.
Another round is scheduled to be held in Muscat, Oman at the end of this week.
Iran's nuclear program
Tehran says its nuclear program is primarily for private use for energy and medical production. But the West doesn't believe this, and given the past rhetoric of Iranian leaders, they don't want to get a chance.
Iranian leaders have issued statements in the past implying that Israel should be wiped out of the map. The best light that these comments were interpreted is that they mean that the state of Israel has no right to exist because of the deceptive and violent ways that existed in the mid-20th century. The worse interpretation, and most common in the West, is that Jews should wipe off the surface of the earth. Furthermore, Iran tends to support terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houtis. For these reasons, Israel and the West feel that, among other countries, is best that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
“Nuclear trade”
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPAO) contract (or known as the Iran nuclear deal), Iran, signed by President Barack Obama in 2015 and ended Trump in 2018, was allowed to enrich uranium by up to 3.67% purity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran currently has 275kg of uranium enriched at 60%, far beyond what is needed for civilian use. Nuclear weapons require uranium enriched to 90% purity. If Iran continues to enrich, many fear that within 18 months they will have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.
However, on the US side, messaging appears to be largely contradictory. In late March, DNI Gabbard said at a hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Television Community that Iran had not built nuclear weapons. She said:
The Intelligence Report Community continues to appreciate Iran's lack of building nuclear weapons, and Khamenei has not approved the nuclear weapons programme that was stopped in 2003. If Tehran decides to reapprove the nuclear weapons program, the IC will continue to monitor it.
However, Gabbard admitted at the same hearing that Iran's uranium enrichment is “at the highest level” and that it is “unprecedented for a nation without nuclear weapons.”
What America Wants to Iran
National security adviser Mike Waltz said he hopes Trump will completely dismantle Iran's nuclear program. This is the only position I think Israel will be equally acceptable. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained what it would look like.
We will blow up the facilities and dismantle all our equipment under American oversight and execution.
However, Iran does not consider removing the nuclear program entirely. And on Saturday, Witkov didn't raise it. Instead, he is said to prefer a “validation program” with restrictions that reduce the fear of nuclear weapons.
Is it Israel's influence?
Earlier last week, Trump strengthened suspicions that Israel is at the heart of this potential war. He said:
If we need an army, we're going to have an army. Israel would clearly be very involved in it, it would be a leader.
Israel naturally feels threatened by nuclear-armed Iran. As mentioned earlier, Iranian leaders were not shy about their opposition to the Jewish state.
However, there are suspicions that Israel is trying to make the United States do dirty work. Israeli leadership portrayed Iran and its proxy not only as itself but as a threat to the United States. On July 25, 2024, Netanyahu said in a speech to the US Congress that “Iran's terror lies facing its friends in America, Israeli and Arabia.”
Former Democrat Rep. Dennis Kucinich said Netanyahu had said years ago that Israel needed the US to take care of Iran.
The US B-52 bomber, which can provide bombs to fill nuclear bunkers, also took part in a joint exercise with the Israeli Air Force in preparation for a potential strike at Iran's underground nuclear site.
And it is suspected that Trump's decision to withdraw from the JCPAO agreement was heavily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu has long praised Trump for publicly exploring Iran's nuclear deal and leaving it.
Possible consequences of war with Iran
Domestic, US intervention in Iran appears to have little benefit from zero.
One of Trump's most fascinating reelection story points was his anti-war record and rhetoric. During his first term, the United States did not begin a new war. Also, competition in volatile regions has been boiled down. Even after winning reelection, Trump has repeatedly said that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if he had been president in place of Joe Biden. Hamas would not have carried out a horrifying attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Political, the war with Iran would hurt Republicans. It will provide opposition feed to Democrats during the mid-term. “He didn't run in a new war, but now he's in the war with Iran,” a major theme for Democrats. Furthermore, it alienates many magbass. Simply put, war on behalf of Israel is unpopular on both sides.
Another possible outcome is rising oil prices. As Kushinich pointed out, the war with Iran will disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, the main path for oil transport from several Middle Eastern suppliers. This will reduce supply and increase prices. And given that the US is still in the midst of speeding up its drill baby drill strategy, Americans will see a rise in gas prices. One of the main torpedoes that sunk Democrats in 2024 was the rise in gas prices during Biden's disastrous term.
And even if the US and Israel join forces against Iran, it may not end the nuclear threat. Globalist-oriented Foreign Relations Council experts were able to make rare rational points.
The Islamic Republic is simply too much of a wealth of materials, and keeps too many advanced centrifuges to destroy everything for the US and Israeli military to absolutely and certainly destroy everything. There are also many nuclear experts who can be tasked with reviving the program from Kura Rub. Even the US intelligence agency predicts that a programmatic set-up from a military attack will be short-lived. It's probably just a few months. To use the military to truly halt the program, the US must either frequently repeat military strikes or try to run a change of government campaign to break that cycle with devastating and highly uncertain consequences.
Does Congress have a voice?
One missing part of this foggy conversation about the war with Iran is who should make such an outcome decision. Former representative Ron Paul recently observed:
It's strange if it seems strange that the outcome of a meeting between the US President's designated negotiator and the ministers of foreign governments can determine whether or not it will enter the biggest war since World War II.
Paul continues to remind readers that this decision should not be decided by the President or his aides.
This is a great example of why our founders decided to protect their government's authority to fight against government administration. No one – far fewer than his aides – should have the power to bring this country to war.
That is why the Constitution places the authority to go to war in the hands of the people, the US Congress, firmly and exclusively. After all, it is the people of the United States who are expected to fight war, pay for it, and bear the burden of the outcome of the war. When that incredible power is placed in the hands of one individual – even if the individual is elected – the temptation to use it is too great. Our founders recognized this weakness in the British monarchy, the system they rebelled on, so they wisely revised it when they drafted our constitution.
Paul concludes with his wives of advice so far that it is a high time when it is to stop interfering in conflicts that are empty with Americans. That's where Congress comes in, he said. But unfortunately, “They are not found anywhere. That's not a good thing.”
