Enemies By Design: How The US And USSR Shaped Each Other's Identity

 By John Richardson

In a dramatic and unexpected policy reversal, Donald J. Trump’s special envoy to Iran, Steve Witkoff, declared Tuesday that Tehran must fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program, walking back remarks made less than 12 hours earlier on Fox News in which he indicated a willingness to permit limited uranium enrichment for civilian use.

The sudden shift in tone, outlined in a late-night social media statement, signals a more hawkish direction that could jeopardize ongoing U.S.-Iran talks and raise the specter of renewed military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal,” Witkoff said in the statement. “Any final arrangement must set in place a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East, meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

Witkoff, a real estate developer with no prior diplomatic experience, added that President Trump had tasked him with negotiating a “tough, fair deal that will endure,” insisting that the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program was now non-negotiable.

His announcement marked a sharp departure from his comments on Monday, when he told Fox News that the U.S. was prepared to accept Iran enriching uranium up to 3.67 percent, the level permitted under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord brokered by former President Barack Obama and later abandoned by Trump in 2018.

“In some circumstances they are enriching at 60 percent and at others at 20 percent. That cannot be,” Witkoff said during the interview. “You do not need to run, as they claim, a civil nuclear program where you are enriching past 3.67 percent.”

The envoy’s dual positions, one suggestive of compromise, the other of total rollback, have fueled speculation of internal discord within Trump’s foreign policy team and raised doubts over whether the former president is directing a coherent diplomatic strategy.

It is unclear whether Witkoff’s revised stance reflects a direct intervention from Trump himself or pressure from Iran hawks within the GOP, some of whom have criticized recent U.S. engagement with Tehran as a dangerous retreat toward Obama-era policies.

Analysts say the reversal could imperil delicate negotiations underway between Washington and Tehran, which have been taking place through backchannels in Oman. A new round of indirect talks is scheduled to begin Saturday, after U.S. proposals to shift the venue to Italy were quietly shelved.

Tehran has long insisted on its right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear program. Witkoff’s statement, requiring Iran to halt all enrichment activities, including low-level ones permitted under international agreements—is likely to inflame tensions and embolden hardliners within the Islamic Republic, who argue that Washington cannot be trusted.

A fragile consensus had recently emerged in Tehran around a possible sanctions relief deal with the United States. Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, had cautiously welcomed Witkoff’s participation in the talks, viewing them as the most significant diplomatic opening since 2015.

Those hopes may now be dashed.

“This hardline rhetoric confirms the worst fears in Tehran that U.S. policy toward Iran remains erratic and hostile,” said Dina Esfandiary, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group. “The credibility of any future agreement has now been severely undermined.”

Witkoff’s diplomatic inexperience has drawn scrutiny since his appointment, particularly given his simultaneous roles in overseeing efforts in Ukraine and Gaza. His approach has largely been characterized as relaying Trump’s personal instincts rather than coordinating a structured policy framework.

Observers note that Witkoff’s latest position could reflect a broader pattern of inconsistency in Trump’s foreign policy, where personal grievances and domestic politics frequently override strategic planning.

“The confusion here isn't just about nuclear policy, it’s about who is actually in charge,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. diplomat and nonproliferation expert. “You have an envoy sending conflicting signals, with potentially global consequences.”

Meanwhile, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, is expected to visit Iran later this week in a bid to expand inspectors’ access to sensitive nuclear sites. It remains uncertain how Witkoff’s statement will affect that visit, though experts warn it could complicate Iran’s cooperation with international watchdogs.

The White House has not issued an official statement addressing the contradiction between Witkoff’s positions. Inquiries to the Trump campaign and Witkoff’s office were not immediately returned.

With just days before the next round of indirect negotiations, the gap between Washington’s demands and Tehran’s red lines appears wider than ever. For many watching the unraveling diplomacy unfold, the moment feels like a return to the volatile brinkmanship that defined much of the U.S.-Iran relationship during Trump’s first term.

Whether there is still room for dialogue, or if the opportunity for diplomacy is slipping away, remains to be seen.