Iran International congressional reporter
The incoming administration of Donald Trump has revealed little about their policy toward Iran, with many in Washington debating the next moves on sanctions, the nuclear issue, and Tehran's broader role in global stability.
On Thursday, I had a brief encounter with Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Senator Marco Rubio, in the halls of the Senate Russell Building. When asked about the United States’ current sanctions on Iran, Rubio offered a succinct justification.
“If Iran didn’t flow money to terrorist groups, there would be no sanctions,” he said, stressing his belief that the Iranian regime prioritizes its geopolitical ambitions over the welfare of its citizens. “I see no evidence that the regime spends the money they generate for the people of Iran,” he added.
I also pressed Rubio on what an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran would look like. “We will discuss that once I’m confirmed,” he said, citing his pending confirmation as state secretary.
Senator Rubio’s comments suggest that the administration may be recalibrating its approach to diplomacy with Tehran, but the specifics remain tightly guarded.
Last week, Representative Michael Waltz highlighted the broader geopolitical stakes of Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. Waltz framed Iran’s influence as extending beyond the Middle East, impacting other theaters of global conflict.
“Maximum pressure, not only will it help stability in the Middle East, but it’ll help stability in the Russia-Ukraine theater as well, as Iran provides ballistic missiles and literally thousands and thousands of drones that are going into that theater,” he said.
These comments shed light on some key aspects of the Trump administration’s approach to Iran on three tiers:
1. Domestic
Rubio’s criticism of Tehran’s resource allocation underscores a broader narrative within US policy circles: that the Iranian government prioritizes its ideological and military goals over improving the lives of ordinary Iranians. This rhetoric not only justifies sanctions but also seeks to build moral justification for US policies.
2. Regional
Rubio’s remarks indicate that sanctions are unlikely to ease as long as Iran continues to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The administration’s hardline stance suggests a belief that financial isolation could force Tehran to reconsider its regional agenda.
3. Global
Waltz’s comments highlight an emerging perspective that Iran’s activities are no longer confined to the Middle East. The administration appears to view Tehran as a destabilizing force in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, through its provision of drones and missiles. This framing links Iran policy to broader US strategic interests in Eastern Europe, potentially broadening the case for continued pressure.
And the nuclear question
Top on the Trump team’s list of priorities when it comes to Iran is, of course, the country’s nuclear program. Rubio’s reticence on the issue suggests that the administration may still be formulating its approach. While the specifics remain uncertain, any future negotiations would likely focus on verifiable limits to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, coupled with measures to curb its missile program and regional influence.
The Trump administration’s Iran strategy continues to evolve, but its broad contours reflect a commitment to economic pressure and containment. Comments from Rubio and Waltz signal a focus on curtailing Iran’s regional and global influence, tying these efforts to broader US interests.
As the administration moves forward, it remains to be seen how these priorities will translate into concrete policies, particularly on the nuclear front. For now, the Trump team is keeping their cards close to their chest.
A fierce battle is unfolding between centrist politicians, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian, who favors dialogue with Trump in an effort to solve the country's economic problems as he told the NBC News channel, and hardliners who accuse the proponents of negotiations with the Trump Administration of selling out the country to the United States. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attempted to take a neutral stance, stating that the Ministry simply implements decisions made by the political system. "Decisions will be made by the authority that has to decide," Entekhab News quoted him as saying.
These conflicting views among Islamic Republic officials and politicians regarding negotiations take place against the backdrop of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's firm opposition to talks with Donald Trump, primarily due to Trump's role in the assassination of former IRGC Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani.
The positions of both men are well-documented and publicly accessible. Khamenei's opposition to negotiations with Trump is explicitly stated on his official website, while clips of Trump’s televised statement admitting to ordering Soleimani’s killing are widely circulated on social media. Neither can deny their past remarks.
A senior member of Khamenei's office, Mehdi Fazaeli, told the press in Tehran on Wednesday: "I say loud and clear, and with the highest degree of certainty that negotiations with the United States will not serve our national interests."
At the same time, Foreign Minister Araghchi has stated that "Iran might start negotiations if Washington returns to the 2015 nuclear deal." However, this scenario seems unlikely, given that it was Trump who unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018.
Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely that Iran's nuclear program would be the sole focus of negotiations between Khamenei's Islamic Republic and Trump's America. The West has repeatedly emphasized its demand for Iran to cease harboring and supporting “terrorism” and armed proxy groups.
Although Israel’s attacks against Iran’s regional proxy groups have diminished their prominence on the negotiation agenda, the United States, Europe, and even China remain concerned about the Yemeni Houthis’ attacks on Israel and international navigation in the Red Sea.
The Didban Iran website quoted Fazaeli as saying: "Supporters of negotiations believe they can resolve Iran's economic problems, while opponents argue that not only will negotiations fail to address these issues, but they may also lead to new challenges."
Fazaeli, regarded as a voice reflecting Khamenei’s views, stated that "the Islamic Republic, rooted in its ideology, cannot engage in talks with oppressors and imperialists." He further argued that "America's positions on the Panama Canal and Greenland are clear evidence of its imperialist nature."
"Meanwhile, our experiences negotiating with the United States, whether over the release of US hostages in 1981 or the nuclear deal in 2015, have reinforced our distrust of America," he said, notably without expressing any regret over the 1979 hostage-taking of US diplomats.
Hardline daily Kayhan, close to Khamenei's office, characterized Pezeshkian's remarks in his NBC interview about the possibility of talks with the Trump Administration as "Begging America for negotiations," and added: "That is madness."
While Iranian hardliners are well-known for their staunch opposition to rapprochement with Washington, other Iranian politicians also frequently resort to anti-US rhetoric. Earlier this week, in an ironic twist, Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf repeatedly chanted "Death to America!" in an effort to pacify an outraged hardliner MP who was railing against the US in parliament.
The apparent divide among Iranian politicians over negotiations could be a calculated strategy to present a united front in disagreement, aimed at convincing US negotiators that significant concessions are needed from Washington to overcome internal opposition. At the same time, they may seek to reassure Russia during an upcoming meeting between President Pezeshkian and Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Friday that the prospects for Tehran-Washington relations remain uncertain.