Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Iran / Only Trump can go to Tehran
Iran, Israel, Middle East

August 8, 2024

Only Trump can go to Tehran

By Andrew Day

Following Israel’s assassination of Hamas’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh, the Middle East is on the brink of regional war. The killing occurred in Tehran after Haniyeh attended the inauguration of Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, a moderate who campaigned on reengaging the West. Pezeshkian has been open to negotiating a revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal). But Israel’s attack makes that less likely—and raises the odds of the U.S. getting dragged into war with Iran.

Strangely, the best bet for improving relations with Tehran and putting the Iran deal back together may be a return to the White House of Donald Trump, the very man who blew up the accord in 2018. To understand why, consider an old American adage.

“Only Nixon could go to China” captures a general truth about politics in a polarized democracy. Conservative politicians who pursue liberal policies, and liberal politicians who pursue conservative ones, signal that those policies really are in the national interest. Nixon’s reputation as an anti-communist liberated him to try improving relations with Red China in 1972, since voters could then infer it wasn’t some peacenik aspiration.

This dynamic helps explain why President Joe Biden, early in his presidency, failed to revive the JCPOA, which likely would have involved lifting all of Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions and removing his designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Had Biden freed up funds for the “mad mullahs” and legitimized the IRGC, he would have gotten hammered by the same forces that panned his Afghanistan withdrawal, from which his poll numbers have never recovered. To many voters, these steps would have seemed part of a reckless liberal agenda, and Biden would have seemed weak. Kamala Harris, if elected, would face the same political calculus.

Read at The American Conservative

Author

Andrew
Day

Former Contributing Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

op-edIran, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

Maximalism will doom diplomacy with Iran

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 8, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Middle East

As Donald Trump prepares for Middle East visit, his efforts there aren’t inspiring

By Daniel DePetris

May 6, 2025

Press ReleaseHouthis, Air power, Middle East, Military analysis, Yemen

Ending strikes on Yemen: Good news if it sticks

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 6, 2025

op-edIran, Middle East

Trump needs his team on the same Iran page

By Daniel DePetris

May 5, 2025

op-edYemen, Air power, Houthis, Iran, Middle East

In Yemen, Trump risks falling into an ‘airpower trap’ that has drawn past US presidents into costly wars

By William Walldorf

May 5, 2025

ExplainerMiddle East, China, Europe and Eurasia

China can’t dominate the Middle East

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 5, 2025

Events on Iran

See All Events
virtualHouthis, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East, Yemen

Past Virtual Event: Houthi conundrum: defend, degrade, or defer

March 28, 2024
virtualGrand strategy, Iran, Middle East, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Keeping the U.S. out of war in the Middle East

January 16, 2024
in-personGrand strategy, Iran, North Korea, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Managing nuclear proliferation crises

October 30, 2017

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved