Trump Faces 47-Year Iran Dilemma as Deal Could Legitimize Regime He Threatens

4 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · May 8

Trump is portrayed as wanting an Iran deal even as his rhetoric swings between negotiation and calls to end the Islamic Republic after 47 years.
The core obstacle is Washington’s split objective: securing nuclear and other concessions from Tehran while also seeking regime change, which makes sustained bargaining inherently unstable.
That contradiction weakens U.S. leverage because Iran treats the stakes as existential, making its leaders more willing to absorb sanctions, strikes and escalation than a U.S. president facing lower political costs.
Obama’s nuclear accord temporarily resolved that tension by prioritizing arms control, but Trump’s withdrawal helped discredit Iranian moderates, restore hard-liners and accelerate enrichment.
The broader argument is that any new deal could win U.S. interests on nuclear limits while granting Tehran the legitimacy it has sought from Washington for decades.

Did military strikes accidentally create the nuclear-armed Iran they were meant to stop?

How did Iran turn a military assault into strategic control over global trade?