President Trump’s Skillful Negotiations with Iran: A Reflection of Unyielding Leadership

President Trump, demonstrating remarkable leadership and negotiation skills, recently made a considerable attempt at diplomacy with Iran. His goal was to ensure global peace and stability by persuading Iran to abandon their uranium enrichment program. Despite extending numerous opportunities and expressing clearly, ‘Just do it,’ Iran persistently fell short of effectively coming to terms.

This lapse in diplomatic talks was not a simple two-day attempt. Spanning over two months, President Trump magnanimously held Israel at bay to give diplomacy a chance. The negotiations didn’t meet the desired outcome, mainly because Iran failed to adequately negotiate.

In line with this, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, was requested by Trump to postpone any form of aggressive action. The President understood that premature attacks could potentially jeopardize the negotiation talks. Trump’s foresight in this matter further portrays his shrewdness in diplomatic strategies.

As the final stages of the likely attack from Israel were being prepared, President Trump reiterated his commitment to peace and dialogue. The President voiced his concerns to reporters saying, ‘I don’t want them going in,’ indicating his preference for bringing Iran to a resolution via talks rather than resorting to force.

Trump further insinuated that certain Iranian leaders who were against the deal found themselves at the receiving end of the Israeli attack, resulting in the loss of high-ranking military officials and key nuclear scientists. ‘Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all dead now, and it will only get worse!’, Trump rightly pointed out.

During his first tenure, President Trump made the critical decision to withdraw the United States from a less-than-optimal 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which the Obama administration had signed. Trump highlighted the skewed nature of the agreement and termed it a ‘disaster’ — an accurate assessment, given that it allowed Iran to maintain low-level fuel production, an allowance deemed unsuitable by his administration.

Shifting the focus to the Biden administration, Trump had the courage to step away from a recent pact. The agreement had paused an age-old legal conflict involving tribes in the Pacific Northwest. Cast against decades of lawsuits over depleted fish populations in the Columbia River Basin, the federal government was in a continuous quibble due to the dams installed in the lower Snake River.

Asserting their rights, Native American tribes have taken the position that the U.S. government has not lived up to its obligations ratified by long-established treaties because these dams impede the spawning migration of salmon and other fish upstream. This turn of events indicates that the long-standing legal battle is set to continue, specially since the originally brokered agreement is no longer there.

The official statement from the White House on the withdrawal refrained from specifically mentioning the impacted tribes. The statement painted the key issue of the argument inaccurately — about ‘speculative climate change concerns’ — rather than the primary focus on restoring the salmon population that the tribes were advocating for.

The tribes’ proposition to breach the dams to provide a path for the restoration of the salmon population faced severe opposition due to possible economic implications. A study put forth that dismantling the four dams could likely be the most viable solution but replacing the dams’ electricity, irrigation supplying water, and shipping routes could mount up to a costly range of $10.3 billion to $27.2 billion.

In 2023, the Biden administration signed an Memorandum of Understanding with the tribes, leading to a ten-year truce in these ongoing legal disputes. The agreement dedicated $300 million to Washington, Oregon, and the tribes for the restoration of the salmon populations. Furthermore, against their effort, the Biden administration released another $60 million.

Nevertheless, despite the hefty investment, the Biden administration evaded taking a stance on the politically sensitive proposal to breach the dams. The plan called for more research to be done in the proposal’s context and pledged support for clean energy projects that could potentially substitute the dams’ generated power.

However, the responsibility of deciding and implementing the dismantling of the dams was passed on to Congress. The Biden administration issued a statement indicating the authority to breach the dams was not within their jurisdiction but rather ‘resides with Congress.’

President Trump’s administration presented a clear stance against this move by the Biden administration. They argued that the agreement was a substantial financial drain with the main intention of shutting down the functioning hydroelectric dams. This argument aligns with the adverse effects highlighted in studies about the dismantling of the dams.

In essence, President Trump’s administration firmly believes in protecting American interests. The steps taken, whether in the context of Iran’s uranium program or the Native American tribes’ struggles, mark the administration’s commitment to fair deals and the promotion of peace, stability, and fairness. This is true leadership.