US to Iran : Always And Forever , No Enrichment For You ...

hotair.com · Feb 27, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

After weeks of intense indirect negotiations, the Iranian regime still has not gotten the message. Donald Trump wants an end to Iranian threats in the region, and especially against the US – a permanent end. The Iranian regime still refuses to budge on enrichment, and won't even discuss their ballistic-missile programs and support for terror proxies. They want another JCPOA – a deke for a few years that will allow them to build nuclear weapons at some point. They won't get it, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning, and may get war instead:In the talks, now under way in Geneva, the U.S. negotiators were expected to make clear Iran must dismantle its three main nuclear sites—at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—and deliver all of its remaining enriched uranium to the U.S., officials said.They were also expected to insist that any nuclear deal must last forever and not sunset—the way restrictions rolled off over time under a nuclear pact negotiated under the Obama administration that Republicans have long said was too weak. Trump pulled out of that deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in his first term, reimposing tough sanctions on Iran.The U.S. demands come after Trump warned in his State of the Union speech Tuesday that Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles that could hit the U.S., charges Iran denies.The demands could be tough for Tehran to swallow as both sides look for a diplomatic alternative to a U.S. strike.In an ominous turn for Tehran, the terms of even that deal have begun to shrink. The WSJ reports that the US will now only offer "minimal" sanctions relief for a permanent end to enrichment, not the full-spectrum relief Iran demands for limiting enrichment for a few years. The US wants to maintain leverage over Iran to force more talks on ballistic missiles and terror sponsorship, which the mullahs refuse to discuss at all. This may not be quite the same as the "pray I do not alter the deal any further" moment from The Empire Strikes Back, but it is a clear indicator that the Iranians face consequences for dragging this out.Besides, the White House hasn't put the other issues on the shelf anyway. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran publicly that their refusal to negotiate limits on its ballistic missiles will cause a "big problem" in the immediate future:US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Iran is attempting to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles and that talks on Thursday with Iran will largely be focused around Tehran’s nuclear program.Rubio warns that Iran must negotiate on its missile program, a day after US President Donald Trump alleged Tehran was working on rockets that could hit the United States.“I would say that the Iranian insistence on not discussing ballistic missiles is a big, big problem,” Rubio tells reporters.Rubio also declared that, while the US prefers a diplomatic solution for regional security, "progress needs to be made" on all of these points. By today, apparently. And so, the clock is definitely ticking. The massive deployment of military forces in the region can't be sustained in a state of readiness forever. Now that Trump has ordered the chessboard for a full spectrum of strategic and tactical options, he either has to proceed or relax their posture at some point. It doesn't look like relaxation is on the menu, at least not without a firm and verifiable agreement on Trump's terms rather than Barack Obama's.The first move may come from Israel, Politico reported last night, following up on Israeli media reports earlier in the day. That could make the political risk more palatable, White House sources suggested:These Trump administration officials are privately arguing that an Israeli attack would trigger Iran to retaliate, helping muster support from American voters for a U.S. strike.The calculus is a political one — that more Americans would stomach a war with Iran if the United States or an ally were attacked first. Recent polling shows that Americans, and Republicans in particular, support regime change in Iran, but are unwilling to risk any U.S. casualties to achieve it. That means Trump’s team is considering the optics of how an attack is conducted in addition to other justifications — such as Iran’s nuclear program.“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” said one of the people familiar with discussions. Both individuals were granted anonymity to describe private conversations.Color me a bit skeptical about this idea. First off, it might just make the politics worse in the US. The progressive pro-Hamas activists (and the fringy anti-Semites on the Right) would immediately claim that Israel had led the US into a war we didn't want. We'd see podcasters on the far end of the ideological donut screaming about Jewish control of American policy, AIPAC, rugelach, and Manischewitz. Also, no one would buy it, given all of the preparations Trump has made for a military response to Iran's continued threats in the region. Israel might strike, but everyone would know who gave the order ... and Trump probably prefers the credit. More importantly, though, that would leave Iran with more capability in a first-strike response. The opening move in this scenario should be a massive, widespread attack on the known locations of ballistic missile launchers. Israel can't do that on its own; it would need the US to participate in the first attack. To launch a limited strike on command-and-control centers alone would allow the Iranians to get off a full volley of ballistic missiles in response. Why use up the limited anti-ballistic missile defense systems we have to counteract a volley we could substantially pre-empt? The Israelis know that calculation better than anyone. So now, the question is when the sands run out on the hourglass. It's probably within hours at this point, especially with India's prime minister on his way back home after speaking to the Knesset:Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has boarded his plane to depart Israel, concluding a two-day official visit that included a Knesset address and saw the two countries sign numerous agreements reaffirming and expanding cooperation in innovation and technology, security and defense, trade, and more.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara Netanyahu, stand by after seeing the Indian premier off in a farewell ceremony at Ben Gurion airport.Trump wouldn't have put Modi in danger while he visited Israel. The field looks pretty clear now. Tick. Tock.For those who missed it, Jim Hanson of the Middle East Forum and I talked last week about the options in the field, and what might come if and when the regime falls. The Ed Morrissey Show is now a fully downloadable and streamable show at Spotify, Apple Podcasts, the TEMS Podcast YouTube channel, and on Rumble and our own in-house portal at the #TEMS page!* – Note: Apologies to Heatwave for the headline. Trending on HotAir Videos