Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Iran
    • Western Hemisphere
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Analysis
    • Research
    • Q&A
  • 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

Provoking a war with Iran could be a deadly miscalculation for Trump

By Rosemary Kelanic

February 12, 2026

Press ReleaseSyria, Middle East

Drawdown from Syria a success worth scaling

By Rosemary Kelanic

February 12, 2026

op-edU.S.‑Iran, Iran, Middle East

Trump’s maximalism could derail Iran negotiations

By Daniel DePetris

February 12, 2026

op-edSyria, Middle East

What the latest ceasefire and unification deal means for Syria

By Alexander Langlois

February 9, 2026

op-edGrand strategy, Iran, U.S.‑Iran, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

What happens when we give Europe first dibs on U.S. missiles for war

By Jennifer Kavanagh

February 9, 2026

op-edSyria, Middle East

The U.S. couldn’t prop up the Kurds forever

By Rosemary Kelanic

February 4, 2026

Events on Iran

See All Events
virtualMiddle East, Basing and force posture, Diplomacy, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Military analysis, Syria

Trump in the Middle East: Impacts, implications, and alternatives

May 16, 2025
virtualHouthis, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East, Yemen

Houthi conundrum: defend, degrade, or defer

March 28, 2024
virtualMiddle East, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Israel‑Iran, Syria, Yemen

Keeping the U.S. out of war in the Middle East

January 16, 2024

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.

  • Research
  • Experts
  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2026 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved