President Donald Trump took over the White House with the express intent to ‘fix it all’. Apart from his Russian roulette, wherein he is all set to strike a New Deal with the ‘Evil Empire’ of yesteryears, and rewrite a new subjugated protocol with the allied Europe at large, Trump has his eyes on the Middle East and Iran. With little known of Gaza’s future as it is being seen as a big-ticket ‘No Man’s Land’ resort, competing with Dubai and the Neom of Saudis, Tehran is up for a catch. The knee-jerk reaction from the Oval Office that Washington will not mind bombing Tehran if the Islamic Republic did not talk it out directly was a game-changer.
Though the threat was meant for public consumption, it did wonders on the mosaic of realpolitik. Some saner thinkers in the religious establishment of Iran were quick to reach out to the Supreme Leader, Syed Ali Khamenei, convincing him to make necessary amends and get going.
The rest is history as the United States and Iran held their debut direct negotiations in Oman, and walked out of the arena with smiles and pleasantries for each other. That was a moment of diplomatic triumph, and more is to come as they meet again in Rome for their second round of a tête-à-tête. As Iran and the US are in a perpetual duel, the human equation of their respective leadership is of immense interest.
Khamenei stands on a high moral ground as he is defending his beleaguered country under sanctions for the last four decades, and has put up a brave face despite losses on the proxies’ front in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen recently. Israeli strikes on Iran have rendered damage beyond control, and coupled with a soaring anti-clergy public opinion, it is a horrendous task to stay afloat.
Yet Khamenei’s 2003 Fatwa (religious edict) against assembling a weapon of mass destruction is the most promising talking point on the table, and wins Iran allies in the form of Russia, China and Europe. He still believes that a nuclear bomb is ‘immoral’. In such a situation, Trump will have little leverage but to maneuver an equation of consensus on Iran’s nuclear program and once again enter into a deal that he himself scrapped under his first term. Trump, known as impulsive and impatient, is vying for a quick-fix and this is where he is exhibiting his capabilities of a deal-maker.
All that the US sleuths want is capping of nuclear enrichment, opening it to international inspections and ushering in safeguard and guarantees that will prevent the Islamic Republic from crossing the threshold. That is attainable, and Iran too has no reservations provided its missile program is not brought under scrutiny.
The spanner in the works, however, are the hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv who want a complete surrender of Iran in terms of its regional assertiveness.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants a Libya-style agreement; wherein the nuclear facilities are dismantled, and that too under American supervision and execution. That is not going to happen as Iran has learnt to live with defiance, and will not go to the extent of capitulation. It is pertinent to mention here an observation from Col Lawrence Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff of Gen Colin Powell, who says that if Iran is pushed to the wall and a war breaks out, the ultimate winner will be the Islamic Republic.
Wilkerson, a critic of war-mongering policies especially on Ukraine, believes that none can beat Iran in a war of attrition, and it has “fought all the wars unleashed on it,” and the outcome will be loss of face to American superiority.
Notwithstanding this even-ended assessment, one thing is clear and that is both Iran and the United States want a deal.
The Axis of Resistance has taken baby steps towards its sworn-enemy, the US, and Washington in response has put a pause on its belligerent tone.
Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, surprisingly has taken a rationalist stance and hopes that talks with Iran would be all about verification of its nuclear program, stopping short of calling for Tehran to dismantle it altogether.
This is a breakthrough of sorts and provides credence to able men like Abbas Araghchi, Iranian Foreign Minister, to build on the momentum of diplomacy to iron-out differences in a conventional manner.
Javed Zarif, vice president for strategic affairs from August 2024 to March 2025 and foreign minister, took no qualms in telling Fareed Zakaria on CNN that Iran has mass support if it is pushed into a war, as despite policy fallacies, the republic has stood with the oppressed of the region, an obvious reference to Palestine.
The observation is in need of being read between the lines and the United States having exited in haste from Afghanistan by leaving behind weapons to the tune of $8bn, and on a weaker pitch when it comes to bargaining with Arab allies, must pause to deliberate its next move.
Diplomatic softies’ aside, the US is out in the region with big guns and stationing its second aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson after Truman in the Arabian Sea sounds alarming and inevitably rings war bells. Iran too has thrown in the towel as it has reportedly started working closely with the decimated structure of Hezbollah and its other militant factions to shore up resistance, if it is attacked.
The rejuvenated extremism in Pakistan in support of Palestine and Gaza, wherein the clergy has been cajoled into action by unknown forces to issue edicts in favour of jihad (holy war), can come to the toil if Iran is attacked.
Notwithstanding any sectarian considerations, the wave of masses shall be anti-American and attack on pro-Israeli brands and food outlets these days is a simmering symptom. To what extent can the US withstand such damages is anybody’s guess, and the spectrum of resistance is as broad as from Turkey to Yemen and from Azerbaijan to Lebanon. Though Trump and Khamenei have never been on the same page, and neither thought of rubbing the shoulders, the coincidence is that they beg to disagree and share several points of agreement.
• Trump does not want to see Iran go nuclear, and Khamenei is literally against the bomb.
• US has no qualms if the nuclear program is peaceful and subject to inspections, and Iran has consistently advocated a monitored nuclear deal for its scientific development and not weaponization.
• Trump with stakes for global leadership wants a new-normal
with Iran wherein Israel and its allies are not threatened, and at the same time Khamenei, who sits at the pinnacle of Shia leadership at home and abroad, has religiously shunned atomization as the way ahead and could look the other way for Israel, if the long-standing dispute of Palestine is resolved.
These three salient points boil down the debate to a consensus that there is a way ahead, if leadership walks the talk for erecting a new era of coexistence.
A “verified nuclear peace agreement” cannot be ruled out, coupled with full-fledged normalization of relations between the foes.
In lieu, the US will have to respect Iran’s right for a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which includes acceptance of uranium enrichment (to desired scientific standards) and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.
Trump has the vision to do so, as he walked the extra miles towards the Kremlin, and the same can be replicated with Tehran.
As for Khamenei and his ultra-zealous folks, it is time to take a lesson in liberalism and let fundamental freedoms inside Iran bloom to bless the regime more credibility and consistency in taking on the foreign policy front.
Will they be able to do it is hard to answer, but have no choice at this point of time. Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian 1979 Revolution, opined in 1988 as he agreed for a ceasefire after eight years of war with Iraq that he is ‘drinking a chalice of poison’.
He did so after a casualty graph of one million and utter destruction to the newly-founded republic.
Khamenei stands a better chance to exhibit leadership, and turn the tables by virtue of his scholarly dictum. Time for a change of head and heart for a serene and better tomorrow.
