Analysis of Trump’s Iran Deal Logic

Trump’s Actions Suggest He Wants Competing Power Blocs Based on Shared Geography and Historical Linkages in the Middle East

Donald Trump wrote on Dec. 2 that “if the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity.”

President Donald Trump in a file photo.

Shutterstock

The negotiations between the United States and Iran in Switzerland may be part of a larger play by the Trump administration to change the regional power structure in the Middle East. In such a scheme, removing Iran and its “axis of resistance” proxy network as a center of gravity would be only the first step.

First, President Donald Trump used his first trip abroad to see the Saudis, Emiratis, and Qataris. Then, he awarded his friend and business partner, Tom Barrack, not only an appointment to be U.S. ambassador to Turkey, but also additional roles as an envoy for Syria and Iraq.

Complaints about Israel’s retaliation and self-defense now eclipse the efforts the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces made in Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury.

Together, these actions suggest Trump wants competing power blocs based on shared geography and historical linkages to emerge in the Middle East. Trump believes such a framework would create local balance and enable the United States to escape its traditional role as a police force for the region. Trump and his advisors hope that if the Iran deal can get that regime off a path to nuclear weapons and out of the terror proxy business, his hope for a self-sustaining, secure Middle East may have a chance.

The wildcard in this scheme is Israel. A major resurgence in anti-Israel and antisemitic activity worldwide has shaken the once solid alliance between Washington and Jerusalem. In the United States, the red-green alliance between leftists and Hamas-loving mobs has grown because of the war in Gaza. Nativist media, meanwhile, have helped the Jew-hating right to emerge from its shadows, with the claim that Israel is responsible for all ills.

Complaints about Israel’s retaliation and self-defense now eclipse the efforts the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces made in Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury. Including a Lebanon ceasefire in the memorandum of understanding was an obvious Iranian ploy and poison pill allowing Iran to use Hezbollah provocation to walk away from its deals while blaming Israel.

Despite the many voices clamoring against Israel, there is also understanding within the Trump administration that although Washington and Jerusalem have tactical disputes, the relationship is a net-positive. Indeed, White House understanding of Israel’s value is far clearer than is the public’s.

Formal negotiations during the 60-day extended ceasefire are underway, though the progress that Vice President JD Vance cites is simply a return to the status quo ante of President Barack Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump needs more, but the hard part is just beginning.

Trump has brought many of the players he envisions for his plan into the fray to attempt to maneuver Iran into a less belligerent role.

The danger is that Iran is using the ceasefire is rearm and replenish Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps coffers. The participation of Qatar and Pakistan in negotiations shows another aspect of Trump’s strategy. His chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, has decades-long business ties with Qatar and spins the process as a security and prosperity package to both the Qataris and Trump. Like Obama aide Ben Rhodes, Witkoff hopes that offering Iran more prominence in the region could incentivize more responsible behavior.

The other bloc that the Trump team advances includes Turkey. Trump is willing to defer to President Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan’s ambitions to treat Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq as lying within a Turkish sphere of influence. Barrack promotes Turkey will be a security and economic counterweight to Iran.

As with the Qataris, Erdoǧan’s Islamist ambitions cause alarm, but Trump’s grand strategy assumes that a combination of economic incentives and increased power and prestige can overcome those inclinations. True, this is a heavy lift but, if the White House can manage it, it could offer the United States a chance to exit a region in which it has been inexorably drawn into conflicts for almost 50 years.

Trump has brought many of the players he envisions for his plan into the fray to attempt to maneuver Iran into a less belligerent role. If that goes well, the rest becomes more likely. If not, then he still has Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on speed dial.

Jim Hanson is Chief Strategist for the Middle East Forum. He previously served in U.S. Army Special Forces and conducted counterterrorism, counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense operations in more than two dozen countries. He is the author of several books including Winning the Second Civil War - Without Firing a Shot and Cut Down the Black Flag - A Plan to Defeat ISIS.
See more from this Author
To Preserve the Alliance, Policymakers Must Demonstrate Its Importance and Counter Wildly False Accusations About Israel
See more on this Topic
As the Government Reduces Subsidies, a Growing Share of Import Costs Has Been Passed on Directly to Households
Italy’s Jews Blast Prelate for Misrepresenting Eshkol Nevo As Festival’s Organizers Refuse to Blacklist Author
The Company Carries Influence Since It Would Bring a U.S. Major Into a Sector That Washington Has Viewed as Off-Limits