Adam Turner argues that President Donald Trump is wasting time by negotiating with Iran. Turner gives a sobering account of the regime’s record, but his conclusion moves too quickly from distrust to regime change. Tehran has earned no benefit of the doubt. American service members and regional allies still deserve a president who tests a credible off-ramp before ordering another major attack.
No one ever mistook Trump for a John Lennon peace activist. That makes the change worth noticing. A president who built his public identity around winning now appears willing to ask whether holding fire for a few days can secure more than firing another salvo. Maturity in statecraft sometimes means recognizing that military power has its greatest value when an adversary knows it can be used and the commander knows when to wait.
Recommended Stories
Gaza shows why patient diplomacy deserves a hearing, even when every agreement remains fragile. On July 30, Trump announced a framework for the phased disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups, accompanied by Israeli withdrawals and international monitoring. The sequencing is disputed, Israeli strikes continue, and the arrangement may still collapse. Yet, the process has produced mechanisms that did not exist before.
In its first six-month report to the Security Council in May, the Board of Peace said all hostages had returned, 28 states had signed its charter, and $17 billion had been pledged for reconstruction. The same report identified the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups as the principal obstacle to full implementation. That combination of progress and incompleteness captures how settlements usually develop: one verifiable step, followed by another, with failure possible at every stage.
Iran presents a harsher test. On Aug. 2, Trump held back planned strikes after appeals from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and unnamed Iranian officials. Within two days, Tehran denied that direct talks with Washington were taking place, while Trump accused its leaders of being “unbelievably duplicitous.” The contradiction strengthens the case for strict conditions. It does not erase the value of finding out whether an enforceable deal remains possible.
Washington Examiner readers have already heard the strongest objection: Repeated threat-and-pause cycles can burn presidential credibility. That risk is real. Every pause should therefore carry a fixed deadline, written objectives, independent verification, and consequences announced in advance. Open-ended negotiation invites delay. A bounded test forces Tehran to choose between measurable compliance and the military option Trump has preserved.
Turner’s preferred answer, regime change, understates the uncertainty that begins after a government falls. American forces can destroy another target set. They cannot guarantee control of nuclear material, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the behavior of fragmented security units, or the politics of the government that follows. Those risks may eventually prove acceptable, but they deserve more than a slogan.
THE MULLAHS ARE TERRIFIED OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS THE WEST STILL SCARED OF THE MULLAHS?
The conservative case for negotiation rests on prudence. A strong country uses leverage to widen its choices and reduce the price of the outcome it seeks. Trump can demand nuclear limits, freedom of navigation, an end to regional attacks, and credible verification while keeping bombers ready. Should Tehran reject those terms, the responsibility for what follows will be unmistakable.
Lennon imagined peace without armies. Trump’s version arrives with aircraft fueled, sanctions in place, and Gulf allies working the phones. For the Middle East, that may be the only version with a chance.
Burak Oktenli holds an MBA and is completing a master’s of professional studies in applied intelligence at Georgetown University. He writes on security, autonomy, and assurance in critical systems.
