RUTHFULLY YOURS

Fears that the Trump administration is back-tracking on its declared policy of seeking to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme have deepened following the appointment of several officials to key national security positions who are reportedly opposed to launching military action against Tehran.

Following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington earlier this month, US President Donald Trump was explicit about his determination to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if the talks aren’t successful, I actually think it’ll be a very bad day for Iran,” Trump told reporters after meeting with Netanyahu.

Trump even suggested that Israel could be the “leader” for any future military action against Iran if the ayatollahs refused to give up its nuclear weapons programme.

“If it requires military, we’re going to have military,” Trump said. “Israel will obviously be very much involved in that. They’ll be the leader of that. But nobody leads us, but we do what we want to do.”

Prior to the commencement last weekend of talks between US and Iranian officials in the Gulf state of Oman over Tehran’s nuclear programme, several key members of the Trump administration — including the president himself — further warned that they had no intention of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Trump’s uncompromising stance on Iran’s nuclear aspirations has been echoed by other senior members of his administration. White House National Security Adviser Mike Waltz stated unequivocally last month that the ultimate objective of the talks in Oman is the “full dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear programme.

“Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see…. It is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon, and they will not and cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program. That’s enrichment, that is weaponization, and its strategic missiles program.”

The appointment, however, of several officials to key national security positions in the Trump administration, who vehemently oppose direct military action against Iran, has raised concerns that the White House might be backing away from its commitment to eliminate the threat Iran poses to global security.

In particular, these concerns relate to the recent appointments to the Pentagon of influential figures such as John Byers for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (South and South-East Asia), and Michael DiMino, a former career CIA military analyst and counterterrorism official, for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East).

Both Byers and DiMino have reputations for opposing direct military action against hostile states, preferring instead to pursue other, less confrontational options.

According to Jimmy Quinn, the national security correspondent for National Review:

“Byers, a longtime history professor who oversaw the Charles Koch philanthropic network’s grants promoting libertarian foreign policy stances at universities… is a self-described proponent of foreign policy “restraint” — a term popularized by Koch-backed philanthropies that describes a particular variety of foreign policy retrenchment.”

While Byers’ main focus is on China, where he claimed in a recent article for American Conservative that disagreements between the US and China were primarily caused by misperception, his position means that he will inevitably be able to bring his influence to bear regarding other hostile states, such as Iran.

Similarly, concerns have arisen that DiMino will be able to use his position as the Pentagon’s new chief Middle East policy adviser to advance an anti-Israel stance while questioning the Trump administration’s confrontational stance towards Iran.

As with Byers, DiMino was previously linked to the libertarian Koch brothers, having held tenure as a fellow at the Washington think tank Defense Priorities, which is funded by the Koch team.

Having urged the Biden administration to “pressure” Israel to deliver more aid to Gaza, DiMino has argued that the US has “no vital or existential” interests in the Middle East, and instead advocates a policy of “offshore balancing” that would enable the Pentagon to withdraw US forces from Iraq and Syria — regardless of what adversaries might be delighted to fill the vacuum.

DiMino’s opposition to taking direct military action against hostile states such as Iran was clearly evident during his participation in a recent webinar, when he insisted that Washington’s main interests in the region were acquiring natural resources and countering terrorism, while downplaying the threat posed by Iran.

“We’re really there to counter Iran, and that’s really at the behest of the Israelis and the Saudis,” he said, of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq and Syria.

Instead of taking direct action against Iran, DiMino argues in favour of pursuing a policy of “offshore balancing.” Rather than relying on the US military to fulfil the role of the world’s policeman, other powers are urged to take responsibility for maintaining regional balances of power and addressing local issues. Critics argue that such a policy, if applied to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, would amount to little more than pursuing a policy of appeasement towards the ayatollahs, as well as an agreement waiting to be violated.

“I’m absolutely in favor of getting closer to a point of offshore balancing, reducing US security commitments in the region,” DiMino said. “Removing troops is a way to do that.”

The highly influential positions held in the Trump administration by officials such as Byers and DiMino, together with other senior officials with links to the isolationist, anti-military military agenda supported by the Koch brothers, Tucker Carlson and prominent Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul, have now raised significant questions about the Trump administration’s commitment to requiring Iran to dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes completely.

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently downgraded Trump’s professed demands by asking Iran just to lower uranium enrichment — a statement he quickly had to walk back. Iran has already stated that it could move its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to “safe and undisclosed locations,” presumably for use at a later time. Russia, in an apparent burst of generosity, has offered to host the enriched uranium. How kind of them!

Iran has, unsurprisingly, also protested that it has a non-negotiable right to enrich uranium. The regime will also doubtless protest that it needs at least some centrifuges to enrich low-grade uranium for peaceful nuclear energy – an excuse that worked with President Barack Obama — and then continue enriching uranium at unknown locations until it achieves nuclear weapons breakout.

The prominent positions that these advisers, official and unofficial, hold in the Trump administration, moreover, is all the more surprising given that many of them, such as Sen. Paul, actively opposed Trump during the presidential election campaign.

Consequently, while Trump himself insists that military action remains an option if there is not sufficient progress in the talks with Iran, which are due to resume in Rome at the weekend, there are already suggestions that Trump is not serious about demanding that Iran totally dismantle its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.

Instead, the administration appears to be shifting its position to one where the focus is on preventing Iran from developing its nuclear activities to the point where it can produce weapons — an objective not so different from the dangerously flawed JCPOA nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with the ayatollahs back in 2015.

In addition, just as happened with the JCPOA, there are indications that Witkoff is focusing only on the nuclear issue, and not also on broader concerns such as Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support for regional terror groups. Iran produces short, medium, and long-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Iran has already launched hundreds into Israel, and can reach the entire Middle East and Europe.

Witkoff, who already admitted, “Maybe it was me getting duped by Hamas,” when the terrorist group seemed to have agreed to a ceasefire deal which it later denied, still seems to be causing Trump unintentional embarrassment. Witkoff stated this week that Iran might be allowed to enrich uranium to 3.7%, then quickly had to walk it back.

If a seasoned national security negotiator is not appointed soon for discussions with Iran (and Russia), the Trump administration’s claims that it wants to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme may prove to have been nothing but an empty threat, exposing Trump to international humiliation.

While Trump keeps offering perfect negotiating parameters, such as, “All hostages must be released by Saturday or all hell will break out,” or, “the Iran issue is easy to solve, they cannot obtain nuclear weapons,” his statements always seem to be instantly undermined by officials in his administration.

Additionally, the growing band of isolationists, both media personalities such as Tucker Carlson and people who occupy senior positions in the Trump administration, will have won the policy battle — a victory that will seriously imperil the US and the wider world.

Con Coughlin is the Telegraph‘s Defence and Foreign Affairs Editor and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.