‘Trump Was Clear: No Enrichment, No Missiles, No Proxies,’ Abrams

By Kamaran Aziz

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) – As momentum builds around the first direct talks in years between the United States and Iran, Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. special envoy for Iran and Venezuela, has issued a stark warning. Speaking to France 24’s Marc Perelman in a wide-ranging interview, Abrams cautioned that the Trump administration’s handling of the negotiations could lead to a dangerously weak agreement—or worse, a collapse of diplomacy that triggers military confrontation.

According to the interview by France 24, Abrams said: "It should be no surprise. It is what President Trump wanted in his first term. He almost met the president of Iran in 2017, I guess it was, at the United Nations, but the Iranians didn't want it. The Trump's maximum pressure campaign has always had as its intention, getting some kind of negotiation. Now, it looks as if we will have it, although that's not certain. I mean, it can always break down. I think there's a real danger here, which is that the Iranians perceive that Trump is too anxious and that his negotiator, Mr. Whitkoff, is too anxious for a deal."

He noted that in 2018 Trump exited the Obama-era nuclear deal, formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), criticizing it as flawed and insufficient. "He set forth the whole list of what was wrong with the JCPOA. So it will be very interesting to see whether, if he can reach a deal, it's actually just the JCPOA over again, or whether it's tougher," Abrams said.

On Whitkoff’s controversial public comments regarding enrichment rights, Abrams remarked: "It seems to be. I mean, that's not what Trump said. I'm just looking at what he said all those years ago, when he was fairly clear that there should be no enrichment in Iran. And Mr. Whitkoff has gone back and forth. It seemed as if he was saying, well, they can have some kind of small program. Then he seemed to be saying, no, no, no, it must stop. I think he was using language imprecisely. And I think it remains to be seen exactly what the Trump administration would settle for."

He added: "What about the missile program, which in 2018 Trump said was unacceptable for them to have a vehicle for carrying nuclear weapons against their enemies. Will that be part of it? The Iranians are saying no. It looks like Whitkoff is now saying yes. So, whether they will be able actually to reach a deal is something else."

On Iran’s regional influence, Abrams emphasized: "Trump was very clear back then in 2018 that Iran's support for its terrorist proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, had to come to an end. The Iranians are saying, no, no, no, we're only negotiating about the nuclear questions, not about that. So I think this is very much up in the air. We don't know whether they will really be able to reach a deal."

When asked whether diplomacy is the only viable path, Abrams responded: "I think we should eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program and I think it would be great to do that by diplomacy. If the Iranians are not willing to give up that program, then I think it should be destroyed by the United States and or Israel. But another iteration of the 2015 Obama deal, in which they have just a bit less highly enriched uranium, a bit fewer centrifuges, and the ability to continue to keep that program and rebuild it in just a few months' time, it's not a solution at all. It's merely kicking the can down the road."

As tensions rise, Abrams also pointed to increased U.S. military deployments in the region. "It's certainly an option. And we have seen Trump move a second carrier, aircraft carrier task force into the Middle East, move B-2s to Diego Garcia, move a THAAD air defense system to Israel," he said, highlighting the seriousness of the administration’s military planning.

He also addressed internal debates within the administration: "I think the debate within the administration is going to be between people presumably like Vice President Vance saying don't do a strike it's a Middle East war it's exactly what you've always been against, endless wars, and others maybe Secretary of State Rubio, National Security Advisor Waltz saying this isn't a war [...] It's over in this case in a day or two. They will have that debate and we'll see where the president comes out."

Abrams’ concerns were echoed in a sweeping investigative report by The New York Times published on Thursday, which revealed that Israel had actively developed detailed plans for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, aimed at rolling back its nuclear program by at least a year.

These plans, originally intended for execution as early as May, were reportedly shelved after President Trump chose diplomacy over pre-emptive action.

The Times reported that Israel’s proposals, which included both commando raids and a multi-day bombing campaign, would have required significant U.S. logistical and operational support. In anticipation, the United States moved a second aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, THAAD missile systems, and Patriot batteries into the region. However, officials inside the Trump administration remained divided.

According to the report, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla engaged in advanced discussions with Israeli officials, but opposition grew within Washington. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard presented an intelligence assessment warning that a full-scale attack risked sparking a broader regional war. Key figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Vice President J.D. Vance sided against military action—at least for now.

Nonetheless, the White House remained active in coordinating alternative strategies. President Trump invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, where in private Oval Office discussions, Trump informed him that the U.S. would not support an Israeli strike while talks with Tehran were underway. Despite this, Trump publicly reaffirmed his red line: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” adding that “all options remain on the table.”

Netanyahu, in response, stressed that any effective deal would require mechanisms allowing the United States to “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution.” Meanwhile, Israel’s military continued refining strike plans, reportedly shifting from commando-based tactics to a sustained aerial campaign designed to target underground enrichment facilities.

Trump’s reluctance to authorize strikes, as noted by The New York Times, also stems from his broader desire to avoid another major conflict in the Middle East. However, his administration has not abandoned coercive leverage. The enhanced military deployments serve both to pressure Iran diplomatically and reassure Israel strategically.

The same report highlighted Iran’s degraded military posture: Hezbollah’s infrastructure was severely damaged in recent Israeli operations, the Assad regime in Syria collapsed, and Iran’s missile production capability was diminished. These setbacks emboldened Israeli officials who believed the moment was ripe for decisive action—if only Washington agreed.

Iran, for its part, has indicated a preference for diplomacy. On March 28, a senior Iranian official responded positively to an earlier U.S. letter proposing direct talks. President Trump has since confirmed that indirect negotiations are underway and has given Tehran a narrow window to reach an agreement.

As Abrams concluded in his France 24 interview, “He [Trump] certainly doesn't want to go to war. And you can see him trying to bring a solution to the Gaza war, a solution to the Ukraine war. He certainly doesn't want this. The question I think, though, is if the alternative is a really rotten deal... What choice is he going to make? I don't think we know the answer to that yet.”

As the window for diplomacy narrows and the military stakes rise, the world watches with unease. Whether these talks yield a new framework for nuclear restraint or unravel into confrontation remains a defining question of Trump’s second term—and of regional stability.