Achieving even one of goals would be a big success for Trump

TABNAK, Jan. 31- Referring to goals that Trump is after them in talks with Iran, Fitzpatrick says it would be impossible to achieve all four of his goals, but achieving even one of them would be a big success.

News ID: 7135

Date: 31 January 2026 - 23:20

Mark Fitzpatrick, who was Executive Director of the IISS Americas office and head of the Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme untile 2019, n an interview with TABNAK talked of the recent developments in Iran and US relations and military threats by Trump against Iran.

Following is the full text of the interview:

The USS Abraham Lincoln has entered the Pacific Ocean and the CENTCOM area of responsibility. This ship has approached the region following Trump's recent threats against Iran. What is the purpose of deploying this ship? Military operation or putting pressure on Iran and threat?

Sending the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group serves both as a threat and as a battle preparation.  President Trump undoubtedly hopes that brandishing the threat could achieve some of his goals without having to undertake a military operation that would entail risks of loss of American military personnel.  However, I would not underestimate the potential for him to employ military force against Iran again.  As he sees it, his attacks against Iran last June were cost-free to the United States. This month he conducted a highly successful military operation in Venezuela. Inebriated by these successes, he is inclined again to use the military to try to achieve a foreign policy success.

US President Donald Trump has announced that diplomacy is still an option. On the other hand, the US conditions for negotiation with Iran are: 1- removing all enriched uranium from Iran, 2- limiting Iran's long-range missile stockpiles, 3- changing Iran's policy in supporting proxy forces in the region, and 4- banning Iran's independent uranium enrichment. In such an environment, how likely is diplomacy to succeed?

Diplomacy is Trump’s preferred option.  It would be impossible to achieve all four of his goals, but achieving even one of them would be a big success.  The first is the most possible: Iran has in the past shipped its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, so there is no principled reason not to do it again.  I doubt Trump would be satisfied by just that, however.  He would demand an end to uranium enrichment altogether.

If an attack is carried out on Iran, Iran will also respond militarily and has announced that US bases and ships, as well as Israel, will be legitimate targets. Some argue that the attack may be staged. This could mean that the US is planning to launch an attack and pressure Iran into a deal. And this trend will continue. What is your assessment of this trend?Won't  Iran's reaction result in an all-out war in the first stage?

My greatest concern over attacking Iran is that it would result in an unending war of repeated attacks and counter-attacks, in an escalatory cycle also involving Israel. And for what purpose?Earlier this month Trump talked about attacking in support of protestors in Iran.  Now he is justifying attack preparations on the basis of Iran’s missiles.  Such shifting and unclear goals make “mission creep” and a longer war more likely.

Some argue that, given the nature of the new world order and the large-scale projects such as India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and other projects that the United States is pursuing in the region, the United States cannot cope with the current Iran and is trying to resolve Iran problem. That is, as in the past, policies such as “Dual containment”, creating a balance against Iran, etc. cannot be used to move things forward, and Iran problem must be resolved. What is your assessment?

Ever since the 1979 hostage crisis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the target of American hate.  In the decades since then, Iran has posed one problem after another: supporting terrorist groups, secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, denying human rights, detaining foreign citizens, and threatening neighbors. Given the limited success of containment policies, there is an inclination among some American strategists to take care of the problem once and for all through regime change. The recent protests in Iran make this approach more appealing and justifiable.

If the United States wants to make a deal with Iran, will Israel try to ruin America's game or can a political agreement also satisfy Israel's wishes?

If the United States were to try to make a deal along the lines of the JCPOA, thereby allowing uranium enrichment to continue and not addressing Iran’s missile program, then Israel would object and may well try to interfere to stop it.  But I do not see Trump aiming for such a limited deal.  All of his advisers want to ban Iran from having uranium enrichment.  Trump might be flexible about goals on missile range and support for proxy forces, but not on enrichment.