President Trump demanded Saturday night that Iran “must now make peace” following American military strikes on the country’s heavily fortified nuclear facilities.
The prospects for renewed diplomacy that might end Iran and Israel’s war appeared elusive by Sunday morning, with defiant responses from Iranian officials and a continuation of the exchange of missiles and drones between Israel and Iran.
So far, there was no evidence of Iranian retaliation against American targets in the immediate hours after the strike that Mr. Trump ordered. But Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, who just days ago was meeting with European leaders about the possibility of a negotiated end to the fighting, said in a social media post on Sunday morning that the U.S. attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and that “Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”
During the talks with the Europeans on Friday, Mr. Araghchi had said that “Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again.” But it was unclear whether Tehran was serious about negotiating an end to the fighting that would be acceptable to the United States and Israel.
Mr. Araghchi said Iran would only return to talks “once the aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed.”
For days, Mr. Trump had publicly appeared to be holding back an American strike against Iran, while urging a “complete surrender” by Tehran’s leaders. Some of the president’s political allies cited the president’s longstanding criticism of “forever wars” as evidence that Mr. Trump wanted to embrace diplomacy and negotiation instead of a new military conflict.
And yet in announcing the strikes late on Saturday night, Mr. Trump rejected those urging him not to inject the United States directly into a war that could spiral throughout the region. American military officials said the B-2 bombers that dropped “bunker buster” bombs on the Iranian nuclear facilities had to travel about 37 hours to their targets.
Jonathan Panikoff, the director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, said that Mr. Trump’s attacks were unlikely to convince Iran’s leaders to embrace negotiation in the near future.
“The president’s speech this evening is more likely to be viewed by the Iranian regime as another threat rather than as an opening for diplomacy,” Mr. Panikoff said in a statement. “Iran is unlikely to believe it can simply capitulate to the United States — given that hard-liners in the Iranian regime might view such a decision as inappropriate.”
He added that “without something to be able to claim a reason for a lesser response, hard-liners in the Iranian regime may ultimately win the day, which could lead to a much more dangerous outcome.”
For his part, Mr. Trump appears to have concluded that Iran was not serious about a negotiated resolution after more than two months of failed diplomatic talks aimed at convincing the country’s leaders to give up their nuclear ambitions.
“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,” Mr. Trump said in remarks to the American people late Saturday. “If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”
Michael D. Shear is a senior Times correspondent covering British politics and culture, and diplomacy around the world.
The post After U.S. Strikes on Iran, Prospects for Diplomacy Look Dim appeared first on New York Times.
