Diplomacy is Not a Dirty Word: The U.S., Iran and the Middle East

“If you look at (Trump’s) record, I mean you could say maybe he is a president of peace and maybe that will be replicated in a second term, but the international environment now is much more complicated than it was in his first term. And he will face war and peace decisions in a way that he hadn’t.” Those remarks were made by Dr. Steven Simon, Distinguished Fellow at Dartmouth College and Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on NIAC’s foreign policy-focused panel at its November 12 Symposium, moderated by Negar Mortazavi, Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Host of the Iran Podcast. Simon continued, “His cabinet is shaping up to be one that likes its meat red and they don’t seem to be a crew that would shy of confrontation that would escalate to violent conflict.” 

Lara Friedman, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace elaborated on the idea that President-elect Trump could pursue diplomacy and peace in his second term. “I tend to think that the differences are not going to be about peace in the sense that any normal person means peace,” said Friedman. “I think when Mr. Trump and the people around Mr. Trump talk about peace they’re talking about their idea of peace through strength – which is, you know, more sanctions, more threats, more military action. I think the idea of not being embroiled in foreign wars for them means boots on the ground, it doesn’t apply to more weapons, more bombing, and more engagement in other ways. I think it’s about a boots on the ground question. And I suspect that that will be the line where things will get complicated. If we get drawn into something where there’s a boots on the ground challenge, I think that’s going to be much harder for this president.”

Dr. Nader Hashemi, Associate Professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics at Georgetown University, pointed to Trump’s first-term record on Iran, emphasizing that, had his escalations with Iran in 2020 led to casualties among U.S. troops in the region – beyond the injuries inflicted – the Trump of that time surely would have pursued war with Iran. This time, Hashemi noted that the President-elect remains “surrounded by these war hawks who I think are very encouraged by what they’ve been seeing in the region recently with respect to Israeli policy in Gaza and in Lebanon. And of course what they want is an elevated and extension of that to go after what they believe is the key reason for Middle East instability: Iran. They want to take this to the next level and say this is a perfect opportunity with Israel crushing Hamas and Hezbollah and killing Sinwar and Nasrallah, this is a perfect opportunity to rewrite the political landscape in the Middle East and go after Iran, that is boxed in. That is very much their ambition. I think one of the ironies of this moment is that ironically the adult in the room is actually Donald trump, who personally seems to be reluctant to go to that next step.”

On the prospect of renewed negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, Hashemi took a less-than-optimistic perspective on the issue, underscoring that “it takes two to tango.” While in the U.S., Trump has repeatedly stated his intent to pursue a deal with Iran, “all of his close advisors and these people like Rubio and Stefanik,” as Hashemi stated, “are all extreme war hawks. In many ways, some of them to the right of Netanyahu, who don’t believe in diplomacy. So the question would be how do you even get to Trump’s ear to propose an option.” 

Meanwhile, from the Iranian perspective, Hashemi further emphasized that, despite Reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian’s clear intent to engage diplomatically with the U.S., “foreign policy in Iran is fundamentally determined by the Supreme Leader,” a reality that Hashemi does not believe is bound to change any time soon. 

Dr. Jon Hoffman, a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University, outlined his assessment that there is significant divergence between American and Israeli interests despite the “no daylight” policy pursued by multiple U.S. administrations with respect to Israel. Assessing U.S. interests, Hoffman stated that “enabling what Israel is doing, funding dictators throughout the Middle East ranks pretty low on the prioritization list.” Hoffman noted that “the problems of U.S. Middle East policy are structural, they extend beyond any one political party or one person. U.S. Middle East policy for eight decades has been rooted in really two pillars, and I sing this tune all the time. The first pillar, unconditional support for Israel. Second pillar, support for select Arab autocrats rooted in this myth of authoritarian stability, the idea that the select individuals are the best guarantors of U.S. interests. The Abraham Accords were an effort to merge these two pillars by brokering the normalization of relations. The issue keeping them from doing so, historically, was Palestine. But by design, the Abraham Accords sought to forcibly sideline the Palestinian issue thinking that it could just be swept under the rug…we see over the past year, that’s not sustainable.”

Dr. Hoffman continued that, should President-elect Trump continue to pursue perceived stability in the Middle East vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and particularly package it “as a way to stop what’s happening in Gaza, preserve a two-state solution, balance against Iran, counter China..,” he fears that such a path would lead to “concessions that are just detrimental to American interests, not to mention Middle East stability and the actual fortunes of the people of the region.”

Simon further added at the conclusion of the panel that, if he had the ear of President-elect Trump, he would advise him to avoid war with Iran, and that now is “a good time to strike a bargain” particularly given the status of Israel’s activities throughout the region. What comes to pass in a second Trump term remains to be seen, but between Israel’s continued war in Gaza and Lebanon, persistent tension with Iran, and continued divergence between U.S. interests and that of U.S. client states, this next administration will surely have their work cut out for them.