Trump’s Shift in Foreign Policy: Embracing the ‘Axis of Evil’
WASHINGTON, DC – It has been over two decades since the term “axis of evil” was introduced by a US president during a State of the Union address. George W. Bush initially used this provocative phrase to describe Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and North Korea, aiming to galvanize the American public to focus on “states like these and their terrorist allies… arming to threaten the peace of the world.” Subsequent administrations have expanded this list to include Russia and China as well. However, in a surprising turn of events, just hours before President Donald Trump was scheduled to deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress since his second inauguration, reports began circulating that he might be considering a more conciliatory approach toward some of these nations.
Bloomberg was the first to report, later confirmed by various news outlets, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed willingness to assist Trump in initiating discussions with Iranian leaders regarding their nuclear ambitions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is said to have formally requested this during a groundbreaking meeting with top Kremlin officials in Riyadh last month. Trump reportedly also touched on this matter directly with Putin during a recent phone call.
As The i Paper highlighted last April, there were early signs that Trump was interested in pursuing direct talks with Iran, even as the 2024 US presidential election campaign approached. At that time, rumors circulated in Washington suggesting that North Korean leaders had advised their Iranian counterparts to reach out to the Trump administration, hoping to replicate the unique relationship that Trump enjoyed with Kim Jong Un during his first term.
In a notable development last November, shortly after Trump’s election victory, Elon Musk—then an advisor to the President-elect—held unannounced meetings with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at a secretive location in the New York area. Although Trump’s team declined to comment on these discussions, Iranian officials characterized them as “positive” and “good news,” indicating a potential early effort to ease tensions between the two nations.
Now, it appears that Trump’s initiative to enhance dialogue with Iran is gaining momentum. The Kremlin seems eager to facilitate these conversations, especially as the White House’s approach is causing considerable unease among European leaders, who notice Trump echoing many of Putin’s narratives regarding the war in Ukraine. In a striking move, Trump has even floated the idea of Russia’s return to the G7 as a potential reward for a peace agreement concerning Ukraine.
- Even the prospect of direct discussions with Tehran is unsettling many foreign policy traditionalists in Washington and beyond.
- They worry that the recent criticism leveled at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reflects a broader reluctance on Trump’s part to engage deeply in complex diplomatic negotiations.
A recent analysis from the Atlantic Council published on Tuesday warns that “indications suggest that the United States and Iran are heading toward confrontation rather than a successful diplomatic outcome.” The report emphasizes that Iran continues to articulate its position in line with the internationally recognized nuclear deal, from which Trump had withdrawn during his first term. “Iran and the United States are essentially talking past one another regarding ‘deals’… if current stances persist, this sets the stage for a showdown,” argues Jason Brodsky, policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran.
In Israel, the potential for US-Iran talks has raised concerns. A report from The Times of Israel described the situation as “deeply worrying for Israel,” which has sought Trump’s support for credible military threats against Iran to compel it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Interestingly, Trump’s rhetoric toward Iran has become increasingly ambiguous in the weeks since he regained power. In an executive order signed last month, he reinstated the “maximum pressure” policy on Tehran, while simultaneously expressing a desire for peace. “I hate to do it,” he remarked to reporters. “I want Iran to be peaceful and successful… I hope we can achieve something that doesn’t lead to a catastrophic situation.”
On his social media platform, Trump went further, advocating for a “Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement” and suggesting that negotiations should commence immediately, culminating in a grand celebration in the Middle East upon its completion. One thing is certain: concerning Iran and numerous other global issues, Trump is contemplating strategies that diverge significantly from traditional diplomatic practices, leading to the potential for unexpected developments.
