The Incoming Trump Administration and Iran’s Nuclear Aspirations

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office, the geopolitical landscape presents a significant challenge: Iran’s potential emergence as the world’s 10th nuclear-armed state. The dynamics of U.S.-Iran relations remain uncertain, largely due to differing strategic perspectives from both sides.

Trump: A Known Challenger to Iran

Historical context suggests that Trump’s approach will be combative, reminiscent of his previous term. During that presidency, he spearheaded a “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at undermining the Iranian regime’s stability and financial viability. Trump’s nomination for Secretary of State, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, is known for his hardline stance on Iran, drawing from a long record of advocating for aggressive policies against the Tehran regime.

Following a recent incident in which the Iranian regime launched 200 missiles towards Tel Aviv, Rubio reaffirmed his position, stating,
“Only threatening the survival of the regime through maximum pressure and direct and disproportionate measures has a chance to influence and alter their criminal activities.”
This attitude hints at the possibility of restoring sanctions waivers or even threatening sanctions against countries engaging in business with Iran.

A Shifting Defense Strategy

The proposed national security adviser, Representative Michael Waltz from Florida, echoes Rubio’s sentiments. Recently, he criticized the Biden administration for urging Israel to maintain proportionality in its counterstrikes against Iranian provocations, claiming it pressured Israel to restrain its military capabilities.

Waltz went further, suggesting that Israel should target strategic installations in Iran, including oil facilities on Kharg Island and the nuclear sites in Natanz. These recommendations reflect an aggressive posture contrasting with the Biden administration’s cautionary approach.

Trump’s Complex View on Iran

Last month, Trump appeared to distance himself from direct military action against Iranian leadership, stating, “We can’t get totally involved in all that. We can’t run ourselves, let’s face it.” He expressed a desire for a cordial relationship with Iran but firmly stated that the nation “can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

At a press conference in August, he remarked, “I’m not looking to be bad to Iran, we’re going to be friendly, I hope, but they can’t have a nuclear weapon.” This duality in Trump’s messaging leaves room for speculation on how he will engage with Iran moving forward.

Escalating Nuclear Tensions

Following the missile attacks from Iran, Trump suggested that Israel should “hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later.” This recommendation comes as Iran announces a significant escalation in its nuclear capabilities, reporting the activation of “advanced” centrifuges after being censured by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesperson for Iran’s atomic energy organization, indicated that Iran would “significantly increase enrichment capacity.” This raises alarms in international circles, especially since Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, although transforming that material into a working bomb could take between six to twelve months.

The International Response and Strategic Calculations

Observers note that Iran’s nuclear ambitions represent both a political and technological dilemma. Nicole Grajewski, a nuclear policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, emphasized that this timeline could present a vulnerable window for a potential military strike against Iranian facilities.

Furthermore, the prospect of Iran publicly declaring itself a nuclear power could trigger a regional arms race, particularly involving Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who might pursue nuclear capabilities of their own in response. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Simone Leeden, warned that such a declaration would exacerbate tensions across the Middle East.

Additionally, while Iran recognizes the risks associated with developing nuclear weapons, including potential military reprisals from both the U.S. and Israel, the nation seems undecided on how to approach its relationship with the incoming Trump administration—should it adopt a combative or diplomatic strategy?

Mixed Signals from Iran

Recent communications indicated a change in tone, with Iranian officials telling President Biden that they would cease assassination attempts against the president-elect. This apparent willingness to dial back hostilities raises questions about Iran’s strategic calculations.

Grajewski remarked on the mixed signaling from Trump and his associates, suggesting that while the administration might revert to a maximum pressure strategy, the ultimate goal remains unclear. “U.S. partners are asking now, to what end? Is it towards regime collapse, or a deal?” she questioned.

The Role of Israel and Tactical Considerations

Former Israeli officials speculate that Netanyahu might feel empowered to strike Iranian nuclear facilities with Trump’s approval. However, the geography of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure presents challenges; many sites are deeply buried, necessitating advanced military capabilities.

Israel could require U.S.-made Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP) to effectively target these underground sites, suggesting a level of U.S. involvement that could escalate tensions.

A Broader Middle Eastern Strategy

Underlying the conflict with Iran is the broader U.S. strategy of strengthening ties within the Sunni Muslim coalition, most notably seeking to deepen relations with Saudi Arabia through initiatives like the Abraham Accords. However, Riyadh’s insistence on recognizing a Palestinian state complicates these diplomatic efforts.

Analysts believe that the incoming administration’s priority will be to stabilize the Middle East quickly, as recent conflicts, particularly the war between Israel and Hamas, have drawn attention back to this volatile region. As the U.S. attempts to realign its military focus towards the Indo-Pacific, the situation in the Middle East continues to pose formidable challenges.

Conclusion

With Iran on the path to nuclearization and a new administration set to take office, the coming months will be critical in determining the course of U.S.-Iran relations. President-elect Trump’s initial steps in diplomacy, military action, or sanctions will shape the geopolitical landscape and influence stability in a region rife with tension.