Understanding Donald Trump's Policy Towards Iran

What is the goal of Donald Trump's administration's policies towards Iran? More than two and a half years after Donald Trump described Iran as one of the key focuses of his foreign policy during his election campaigns, and more than a year after Iran became one of his administration's international priorities, the White House's policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran still exhibit considerable ambiguities and confusion. This confusion is understandable as it seems that the current U.S. government has adopted at least three different approaches towards Iran so far. The first policy, outlined in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's speech in May 2018 at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, conditions tolerance towards Iran on a series of aggressive conditions ranging from the complete withdrawal of its forces from Syria to more extensive and thorough inspections of its military and nuclear programs, considering them prerequisites for normalizing relations between Tehran and Washington. Mike Pompeo explicitly stated that these conditions do not mean regime change but emphasize Iran becoming a 'normal country' and a responsible member of the international community. However, it is unclear whether the Iranian regime can accept and implement such conditions while maintaining its ideological integrity. The reactions of Iranian leaders to date indicate that they also believe such a thing is impossible. On the other hand, in a completely different approach, Donald Trump has shown a tendency towards a transactional approach. He has repeatedly declared his readiness to negotiate with the Iranian government on a new framework for relations between the two countries, provided that this agreement offers more benefits for the U.S. and its allies compared to the 2015 nuclear deal, which he describes as 'disastrous.' Finally, the third approach, particularly supported by National Security Advisor John Bolton, involves applying severe and comprehensive political and economic pressures on the Iranian government to the extent that it could even lead to 'regime collapse.' However, the U.S. government has not shown much attention to the issue of collapse, even if we assume it will happen. In this scenario, several possible outcomes for Iran may occur: from the rise of military power (like Egypt) or the fragmentation and disintegration of the country (like Libya) to the gradual weakening of the government (like Venezuela), and each of these possibilities would have very different consequences for Iran and its people. At first glance, it seems that these strategies contradict each other, although the tactics to achieve such goals (including the resumption of severe economic sanctions) are the same. But upon closer inspection, we realize that the U.S. government's approach to Iran is more flexible than it appears. A look at the summary of the official U.S. policy towards Iran recently published by the White House can be useful. This report, prepared by Victoria Coates, the Middle East advisor at the National Security Council, explains the foundations and logic of the policies the U.S. has implemented against Iran so far. The report states that from the U.S. perspective, Iran is a harmful regional actor that finances much of its destructive and expansionist activities in the region from the economic revenues of the 2015 nuclear deal. Consequently, the main goal of Washington's policy is 'fundamental change in the hostile and destabilizing actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Key points of this policy include blocking 'all possible pathways' for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and preventing the 'export of terrorism' to the region and beyond. In these discussions, the issue of regime change, which some refer to, remains unanswered. However, silence on this matter is itself a response. Simply put, the Trump administration's belief in changing the Iranian government's behavior and reducing its threats somewhat indicates that it does not support regime change. However, if it concludes that achieving the desired changes within the framework of the current regime in Iran is impossible, the U.S. government may accept another government. From Trump's perspective and his administration, ultimately, the decision rests with the Iranian government.