Over the past week, several stories regarding Iran have swirled in the media that have changed the tenor and focus of the discussions about Iran and possible next steps.
While Iran continues to be the target of criticism for its promotion and sponsorship of the “axis of terror” in the Middle East and the subject of concern regarding development of its nuclear program that has much of the Western world on edge, there is now more discussion about alternative approaches to the problem, possible military and other consequences for Iranian intransigence, and support for Iranian dissidents.
Early last week, Iran very publicly rejected President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Iran engage in a new set of direct discussions with the U.S. regarding its nuclear program.
Instead, Iran suggested indirect mediation through a third party. Initial reports indicated that the Trump administration was receptive to indirect talks even though some members of the administration and several members of Congress warned against getting sucked into what is predicted to be another fruitless and frustrating exercise with Tehran.
All of that changed earlier this week during a White House press gaggle at Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when Trump announced that direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran will proceed this weekend, and that both sides will be represented by high-level representatives.
Separately, although several Republicans and Democrats at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last week appeared open to a negotiated deal to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, they also sounded increasingly supportive of potential U.S. military action to prevent the Islamic regime from obtaining nuclear weapons.
There were, of course, more moderate and more isolationist views expressed by some committee members and hearing witnesses. But the very open discussion regarding military options — whether through Israel or the United States, or both — seems to reflect a heightened willingness by several Foreign Affairs Committee members to consider military options and the possible use of force to solve the Iran nuclear program problem.
As all that was going on, a bipartisan bill called the Maximum Support Act was introduced in Congress, calling on the administration to formulate a comprehensive government policy to support Iranian dissidents. The bill — which proposes to use seized Iranian assets under U.S. control to fund nonviolent protest movements and provide intelligence and other support to Iranian dissidents — would require the administration to develop an interagency strategy on how it will support “the Iranian people in their efforts to bring about a transition to a new political system and government based on the rule of law, democracy and human rights.”
The Maximum Support Act is part of a larger group of Iran-related bills announced last week to enhance sanctions and otherwise impose pain on the Iranian regime and its affiliates. Those legislative efforts combined with the mounting rhetoric and chest pounding by those with influence on government policy who are committed to shutting down Iran’s nuclear program and ending the regime’s stranglehold on the people of Iran seems to have gotten the ayatollahs’ attention.
We await the results of the Trump team’s direct negotiation efforts.
