The Spire

Lars-Belvin Larsson ‘26

Opinions Editor

Uncertainty is a function of life, and conflict makes this no easier to wrestle with. In the case of the war in Iran, the U.S. has found itself stymied from day one, and each passing day has made it no better. However, a grand strategy, roadmap, or anything that resembles a plan would alleviate much of the pressure on the Trump administration and the precarious situation it finds itself in.

Undeniably, the military efforts in Iran have been extremely costly, and continuing the onslaught of missiles will only make things worse. Moreover, the U.S.’s goals in the conflict remain shrouded in controversy, as most officials share no agreement on the desired outcome, except for one thing: no enrichment for Iran. This aspiration is certainly admirable, but something the U.S. cannot seem to attain, and it remains a point of contention between the two sides. Most recently, Trump sent a team of three negotiators — Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and private citizen Jared Kushner — to meet with the Iranians, which only highlighted the divide between the two parties, as the peace talks yielded no success. Reportedly, Iran offered a 5-year suspension on uranium enrichment, while the U.S. sought a 20-year pause.

Though this attempt failed, it was a productive first step, and the U.S. and Iran should strive to continue diplomatic talks. Simultaneously, the U.S. should refrain from flattening the Middle East, which would elate the Iranians and help future negotiations. Negotiations are likely to be more successful, but this is also uncertain, given that the last round failed. It is imperative for both sides to understand that diplomatic concessions are necessary, but this also seems challenging for both sides to grasp. 

Arguably, the U.S. should strive for similar terms to the multilateral 2015 JCPOA, or the Iran Deal, which capped its nuclear enrichment at 3.67 percent, well below the 90 percent threshold necessary for a nuclear weapon. The zero-enrichment prospect is something Iran refuses to stomach, and its enrichment is well within its rights under international law, if that is still a thing. The President has long hailed the JCPOA as a terrible agreement, claiming that the “Obama nuclear deal” gave “[Iran] the right to have a nuclear weapon.” Although this statement is inaccurate, the JCPOA essentially delayed Iran’s enrichment timeline through sunset clauses, and the current negotiations appear to be similarly structured. Perhaps the U.S. could address some of the deal’s flaws by accepting low-level enrichment while seeking to eliminate sunset clauses, thereby establishing a more robust framework that remains future proof.

While much of the conflict’s future hinges on negotiation, another is the President’s keyboard and his favorite app: Truth Social. On the morning of April 12, the President felt compelled to disregard a calm, collected approach, declaring that the U.S. Navy would block the Strait of Hormuz. Largely, the President’s position on the Iran war has wavered given the Strait’s closure, so why did he feel the impetus to flip on this position as well? While it could be seen as a wrecking ball to global supply chains, which it certainly is, the move may strengthen the U.S.’s position in negotiations, considering that it removes a primary funding source for Iran’s military, namely the ‘toll booth’ the regime set up. However, since the conflict’s start, the U.S. Navy was hesitant to enter the Strait for good reason, given Iranian sea mines and missiles. Obviously, the President thought of this possible predicament, claiming that anyone who targets the U.S. or peaceful vessels will be “BLOWN TO HELL,” but the effectiveness of this TRUTH is questionable. 

The President’s bipolar tone will prove to be a limiting factor for Iranian officials, who already found negotiating with Trump’s dream team challenging. Iran’s top negotiator and the speaker of its Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, claimed that Iran had approached the negotiations in good faith, but that the U.S. counterparts did not “gain the trust of the Iranian delegation.” Now, this statement is rich coming from the Iranians, who the world does not trust much at all, but the world shares an equal position with the Trump administration and its affiliates. 

Regardless of who is more believable, Trump’s TRUTHs grant little credibility to the U.S., instead moving the needle in favor of Iran. Another truth is that Trump’s approach will not change; if anything, more pressure will make the President even more unpredictable, if the past is indicative of the future. Arguably, the most successful approach for the U.S. to exit unscathed is to confiscate the President’s phone or set a time limit on his favorite app. However, good-faith negotiations must prevail so the two parties can settle on a mutually beneficial solution, thereby also creating a more stable Middle East and alleviating global market strain.