In a moment that stunned many in Washington, Donald Trump announced this week that high-level talks with Iran would begin on Saturday in Oman. Sitting beside him was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—perhaps the most fervent opponent of diplomacy with Tehran—who had just called for a so-called “Libya model” approach to Iran: a euphemism for demands so extreme they would sabotage diplomacy and push both nations toward war.
But what unfolded wasn’t the show of unity Netanyahu expected. Israeli officials may have known that quiet U.S.-Iran talks were underway, but they didn’t expect Trump to announce high-level direct talks, especially not with Netanyahu right there. Trump added to the discomfort by calling Turkish President Erdogan “very smart,” urging Netanyahu to be “reasonable” about Turkish interests in Syria, not committing to lifting tariffs on Israeli goods, and reminding everyone of the $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel. He even said he wanted the Gaza war to end. On every major issue, Netanyahu seemed unable to influence Trump’s position. As Israeli outlet Ynet put it, the White House “prepared a bitter surprise” for Netanyahu.
This shift comes amid a dramatic U.S. military buildup in the Middle East and the renewed assault on Gaza, as Israel’s war machine once again targets a devastated population. The regional fallout has been swift and sweeping: Houthi attacks on Israel and Red Sea shipping, a large-scale U.S. bombing campaign in Yemen, and rising tensions with Iran and its allies. These are all interconnected crises, driven by US support for Israeli militarism and the mounting costs of failed diplomacy.
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration faces a pivotal choice: follow the hawks calling for direct military confrontation with Iran, or chart a course for diplomacy that could avert a disastrous war.
Netanyahu’s vision is a road to ruin
Let’s be clear about what Netanyahu is proposing to Trump: a diplomatic dead end. The so-called “Libya model” refers to the 2003 deal in which Muammar Gaddafi gave up his entire nuclear program in exchange for better relations with the West. Less than a decade later, NATO supported the uprising that toppled and killed him. For Iran, the lesson was unmistakable: give up your leverage, and you risk US-instigated regime collapse.
The “Libya model” is not seen as a genuine peace offer but a call for unilateral disarmament that leaves Iran vulnerable to future coercion or aggression.
That’s why leaders across Iran’s political spectrum—including those seeking engagement with the West—have consistently rejected proposals like the so-called “Libya model” and other sweeping demands. These are not seen as genuine peace offers, but as calls for unilateral disarmament that leave Iran vulnerable to future coercion or aggression. Even reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, a staunch proponent of diplomacy, has made clear that such terms are unacceptable.
Yet despite this, many voices in Washington continue to push the same approach. Influential neoconservative groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and United Against Nuclear Iran are once again calling for zero uranium enrichment, dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and a sweeping rollback of its regional influence. These are not realistic negotiating positions. They’re ultimatums designed to provoke conflict.
The 2015 deal worked. We need a new one.
It’s easy to forget, amid the hysteria and manufactured crises, that diplomacy once worked. The 2015 nuclear deal—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—placed real, verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program. It blocked pathways to a bomb, put inspectors on the ground, and offered a foundation for broader diplomatic engagement.
But Washington’s withdrawal from that deal in 2018, driven by Trump’s desire to please Netanyahu and US hawks, shattered that progress. The result? Iran now enriches uranium at near weapons-grade levels, while the region teeters on the edge of war.
Now, Trump has a second chance. Not to return to the JCPOA wholesale—but to build on its foundation. A revived negotiation process could provide credible assurances that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful while opening the door to a broader reimagining of the US-Iran relationship. Instead of repeating cycles of pressure and retaliation, both sides have an opportunity to seek a future rooted in cooperation rather than confrontation—one that prioritizes stability, dialogue, and the livelihoods of ordinary people over endless conflict.
We must be clear-eyed about what the hawks are aiming for. They don’t fear diplomacy because it might fail; they fear it because it might succeed.
We must be clear-eyed about what the hawks are aiming for. They don’t fear diplomacy because it might fail; they fear it because it might succeed. And success would mean exposing how much of their worldview is built on lies: that Iran is irrational, that military strikes are the only solution, that diplomacy is weakness.
Make no mistake, the alternative to diplomacy isn’t some stable status quo, it’s a regional inferno. A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly trigger retaliation across the region. American troops would be in the line of fire. Oil prices would skyrocket. And the very war Trump claims to want to avoid would erupt on his watch, betraying millions of Americans who voted for him to stop endless wars and bring them prosperity.
Peace is still possible—If Trump wants it
Trump, for all his ego and unpredictability, has shown flashes of pragmatism on foreign policy. His top advisor on Iran, Steven Witkoff, recently told Tucker Carlson that diplomacy should be grounded in realism and mutual respect. Iranian officials, for their part, have stated clearly that if the U.S. is serious about reaching an agreement to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful, a deal is “definitely” within reach.
So the question is simple: will Trump take yes for an answer?
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The world doesn’t need another war rooted in hubris, empire, and Israeli veto power over U.S. diplomacy. It needs bold, committed efforts to prevent war, end unjust sanctions, and move toward a more stable and just regional order.
This could be one of the last real openings to avoid a catastrophic confrontation. The hawks know it. That’s why they’re working so hard to close the door.
