When Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with his G7 counterparts in Paris on Tuesday, he told them that President Trump had considered resuming war with Iran or striking a deal — but chose a third option: strangling the Iranian regime, three people at the meeting told Axios.
Why it’s important: The war in Iran became a political issue during Trump’s second term, costing Republicans dearly in the midterms. For months, the president has alternated between threatening to annihilate Iran and predicting that it would capitulate and give it the deal it wants.
- “He looked for the solution, but he wasn’t sure what the best path forward was,” said a U.S. official close to Trump.
- This debate over which line to follow has given rise to conflicts between several factions at the highest levels of the administration. Each faction had support from U.S. allies in the Middle East – namely Israel favoring further strikes and most Gulf countries opposing them.
Driving the news: After meeting with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Monday, Trump said a new round of strikes against Iran was “fairly unlikely” and “does not seem necessary.”
- Trump said he favored continuing the economic repression and naval blockade against Iran, in addition to a new operation dubbed “Iron Gate” aimed at cutting land routes that Iran uses to move advanced weapons and other technology.
Behind the scenes: Rubio explained U.S. policy toward Iran during a closed-door meeting Tuesday with G7 foreign ministers in Paris.
- “The president doesn’t have just two options. It’s not just going back to war or signing a ridiculous peace deal. We’re not going to make a stupid deal. The third option before us is to continue doing what we’re doing now,” Rubio said, according to three people in the room.
- Rubio added that the United States was imposing devastating costs on Iran’s economy, making it more difficult to finance terrorist organizations or rebuild its military. And there is no end date.
- “The president is not under false time pressure, the Iranians are inflicting significant damage on their own economy,” Rubio said.
The plot: U.S. officials say Rubio was among members of Trump’s national security team who pushed for the chokehold strategy, along with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Jared Kushner, Trump’s adviser and son-in-law.
- This group opposed resuming war, did not believe Iran’s current positions could lead to a deal that served U.S. interests, and lobbied for the third option.
State of affairs: Rubio is deeply skeptical of a diplomatic breakthrough.
- “Iran would love a deal. The problem is that the conditions they continue to impose are absurd. They’re not even serious right now,” he told reporters after the G7 meeting.
- That could change if Iranians feel more economic hardship, he said. “Eventually, you have to eat,” he says. “Eventually, economic realities penetrate the skull of even the most radical madman. So I think over time it will have an impact.”
Yes, but: Several US allies, such as Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, are concerned about Trump’s intention to prolong the economic crisis, a US official said.
- The person said those allies feared that U.S. pressure on them to stop doing business with Iran — including stopping flights and closing their borders — would create instability in their own countries.
The other side: The path chosen by Trump is completely contradictory to the directive that Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei gave to his government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
- Khamenei ordered an end to the “no war, no deal” status quo, demanding a clear conclusion to the war. Iran’s civilian leaders interpreted this as a green light to negotiate a deal.
- But if the current standoff persists and pressure on Iran intensifies, the IRGC could see this as a green light for more aggressive attacks in the region in an attempt to break the status quo.
- “Iran does not intend to accept this situation indefinitely,” said Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran expert at the Atlantic Council. “Tehran may conclude that increasing economic and security costs for Washington and its regional partners is the only way to force change in U.S. policy.”
- He added: “The danger is obvious: Iran escalates, Washington responds, and the two sides find themselves in a new military confrontation that neither side necessarily wanted.”
What to watch: Qatar’s prime minister briefed the G7 meeting on mediation efforts and his conversation with Trump the day before.
- Al Thani said he came away from his meeting with Trump convinced there was more room for diplomatic efforts.
- The sticking points remain: which side will take the first step towards de-escalation and what confidence-building measures the parties will agree to take.
- The Qatari prime minister said he wanted to appeal to China and European countries as guarantors, to help allay deep Iranian suspicions that Trump would break the deal and resume war within months.
Gn headline
