If President Trump succeeds in securing a nuclear deal with Tehran, he will have to focus on other aspects of the Iranian regime’s bad behavior.
Iran does not have infinite time for diplomacy, and the clock is quickly ticking for U.-Iran nuclear negotiations. Irrespective of how those talks conclude, it is clear that at some point, they will, with the natural question being: what happens next?
The Trump administration has established its line of “no enrichment,” which has led to public criticism of the negotiations by Iranian officials. As The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board noted, Iran’s reaction is “a sign President Trump is pushing in the right places.”
It is only a matter of time before it becomes clear Iran will not willingly give up its nuclear ambitions, requiring the United States to turn to other options, as the President explained in remarks throughout his recent visit to the Middle East. Addressing U.S. troops at al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, President Trump reaffirmed that while his “priority is to end conflicts, not start them,” he “will never hesitate to wield American power if it’s necessary to defend the United States of America or our partners.”
The current negotiations are about Iran’s nuclear program. However, another series of negotiations will be necessary to resolve other conflicts, both in the region and globally.
If the Iranian regime’s history is any guide, diplomacy tends to work most effectively when the regime is under greater pressure.
There are two areas where the United States requires a sustained diplomatic engagement with the Iranian regime post-nuclear talks: first, to eliminate the terrorist threats it poses, both directly and through its proxies, and second, as the President has repeatedly said, to build a better future for the Iranian people.
On the first, there is an opportunity to pivot diplomatic efforts with Iran towards securing the release of all the remaining hostages held by Hamas—an approach I’ve advocated for previously. Applying targeted pressure on the Iranian regime over this issue could intensify urgency within its proxy, Hamas, potentially accelerating an end to Israel’s military operations in Gaza—an outcome both Israel and the United States seek.
At the same time, the United States and its global partners can collaborate on shutting down Iran’s avenues of destruction. This could include definitively pushing Iran’s military infrastructure out of the region, thereby facilitating a new chapter of peace and prosperity to take shape. This may also isolate both Russia and China, ridding them of pathways to advance their deleterious agendas in the region and their own neighborhoods.
Iran is no longer only a Middle East problem, as I have written elsewhere. Deprived of both a path to nuclear weapons and a functional regional proxy network, the Iranian regime will likely escalate chaos in other parts of the world—most notably by aiding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and expanding its influence in the Western Hemisphere, including threats on American soil, as it has been doing in directing and funding violence on college campuses over the last two years.
The United States could capitalize on the opening of a denuclearized Iran to surge its efforts to end the war in Ukraine. Thus far, diplomatic outreach has only been to Ukraine and Russia, but Iran provides critical weaponry and other technological support to Russia’s efforts. Our European partners are acutely aware of this, and we must work together to push Iran out of Russia’s aggression in Europe.
The United States could defend likely threats to the homeland, which Iran will likely accelerate. The maximum pressure campaign, unveiled on February 4, 2025, calls on the Attorney General to “pursue all available legal steps to investigate, disrupt, and prosecute financial and logistical networks, operatives, or front groups inside the United States that are sponsored by Iran or an Iranian terror proxy.” Congress already launched the opening salvo by issuing a letter to Harvard University about its ties to research collaborations with Iran.
It is through these two steps—of addressing Iran’s regional and global proxy activities—that the United States can begin delivering on President Trump’s refrain of working towards a better future for Iran.
While Iran’s leadership will be no less aggressive and no more trustworthy following these diplomatic efforts, it will find itself newly isolated and toothless. It is at that point that its future can be addressed, alongside the continued evolution of a new Middle East under the Trump administration. That will include, as senior officials have recently noted, an expansion of the Abraham Accords and the new opportunities it brings.
If the Iranian regime’s founding was based on the principle of exporting the revolution, then this new chapter for the country will be based on exporting and integrating the talents of the Iranian people into the fabric of a new region based on prosperity and peace.
About the Author: Jacob Olidort
Jacob Olidort, Ph.D., is the Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Image: Saeediex / Shutterstock.com.
