The biggest obstacle to an Iran deal may be Trump’s ego

Defence affairs analysis - Def-Geopolitics

President Donald Trump’s constant belittling of Iranian leaders is alarming some Arab and U.S. officials familiar with the Middle East who worry that such insults could prove a major obstacle to truly ending a war that has strained the world economy.

At the core of their concern is whether Trump is willing to show Tehran’s Islamist leaders enough respect to let them claim some level of victory, even if they agree to U.S. demands that leave them militarily weaker.

But Trump’s history of nursing grudges, ridiculing opponents and insisting he wins everything doesn’t bode well for those hoping diplomacy can bring the war to a close, according to interviews with 10 current and former U.S. and Arab officials.

“He badly wants this to end,” a senior Gulf Arab official familiar with the peace talks said of Trump. “But the Iranians are so far refusing to give him what he needs to save face and leave. And he does not seem to understand that they need to save face, too.”

Like several others, the official was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic issues. Some have direct experience dealing with Iran and said that while face-saving is important in any diplomatic negotiation, it’s especially key for Iranians for both cultural and domestic political reasons.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated Tuesday that negotiations were focused on creating a road map for future talks. Axios reported afterward that negotiators were hammering out a memo to declare an end to the war and give themselves 30 days to devise a more comprehensive long-term agreement. The senior Gulf official familiar with the peace talks confirmed there’s been progress toward agreeing on a basic framework.

Asked about the status of the talks, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said “conversations continue.”

Ideally, said Michael Ratney, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Trump would say nothing at all as his envoys deal with the Iranians. “Not a tweet, not a public comment, not a threat, not a compliment. Just let his negotiators negotiate,” Ratney said.

But that is not how Trump usually operates.

In recent weeks, Trump has called Iranian officials “crazy bastards” who are “mentally ill.” He has threatened to end Iran’s “whole civilization.” He has also repeatedly said the U.S. has already defeated Iran in the war.

Trump has lobbed many of these insults and threats as his envoys have sought a negotiated end to a fight that has affected the availability of oil, fertilizer and other goods crucial to the world economy.

The Iranians have responded with their own insults.

Tehran has unleashed everything from Lego videos mocking Trump to trolling social media posts. In mid-April, the state-aligned Tehran Times reported that the National Psychology and Counseling Organization of Iran had “called for an assessment of the mental health of U.S. political leaders, particularly Donald Trump, in the interest of world peace.”

Trump’s disdain for Iran’s clerical leadership goes back nearly 50 years. It’s driven in part by the regime taking Americans hostage shortly after Iran’s revolution tossed its shah out of power in 1979. He also has said he will only settle for a deal that is better than the one President Barack Obama reached with Iran in 2015 — a deal Trump later abandoned.

Tehran, meanwhile, has little trust in Trump. Iranian officials felt burned by Trump’s first-term decision to exit the Obama-era deal. They also were upset by his second-term moves that undercut diplomatic negotiations with military strikes. Such attacks decimated Iran’s nuclear apparatus and killed many of its top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Kelly, the White House spokesperson, said that “what the regime says publicly does not always align with what they say privately.”

“The president will only accept a deal that puts American national security first,” she added.

It’s normal for both sides of a diplomatic negotiation to want to emerge from a conflict declaring victory. The question in this crisis is whether each side can abide the other also claiming it won, officials and analysts said.