Chris Cutrone
Donald Trump began his second term with a push for negotiated settlement with Iran, picking up from efforts at the end of his first term, which had been interrupted by Covid and his unseating in 2020. In the meantime, the October 7 attack had happened, prompting Israel to dismantle Iranian allies throughout the Middle East. This effort culminated in direct war between Iran and Israel in 2025, in the midst of US-Iran talks. Benjamin Netanyahu might have hoped to spike these negotiations, but Trump joined Israel’s bombing of Iran in order to end Israel’s war, turning it into a further lever against Iran for making a deal, and resisting Israeli calls for a “regime-change” crusade. Trump went so far as to offer the prospect of Iran joining the Abraham Accords, which had appeared originally designed to isolate and present a united Arab-Israeli front against Tehran. Trump proudly lists the Israel-Iran conflict as one of the “wars” he’s settled during his first year in office.
Now, protests have broken out in Iran. There have been several waves of such protests going back to 2009 and the Green Movement around controversial election results, disputed between reformers and conservative hardliners. Since then, the specter of regime collapse of some kind or another has loomed. Would the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council be swept aside by the IRGC and Basiji militias in a military coup? Would the veneer of “democracy” be stripped away? Or would there be a democratic revolution and a more radical political change, ending the Islamic Republic? Will a civil war erupt? Will Iran become another “failed state”?
Trump seems to be preparing for any eventuality. In a recent Truth Social post, he promised to “rescue” Iranians from violent repression by the regime. At the same time, as recently as Netanyahu’s visit to Mar-a-Lago ahead of the New Year — the day after Volodymyr Zelensky came to discuss war and peace with Russia — Trump called for Iranian leaders to “take the deal” he’s been offering them. One of his first actions in his transition after election in November 2024 was to make contact with Iranian representatives about restarting talks. Was he sincere, or was it a ruse to trick them into lowering their guard? It is best to take Trump straightforwardly. He has said that Iranian leaders have two choices: deal or conflict. He threw out the JCPOA negotiated by Obama because he thought it was a bad deal, not because he wanted war. He wanted to avoid it. He seems justified in saying that Obama and Biden efforts had led to October 7, because it provided billions to Iran with which they could and did instigate trouble. Meanwhile, Trump’s tete-a-tete and desired détente with Russia’s Putin continues — as China’s Xi has accepted an invitation to visit Washington and Trump agreed to travel to Beijing later this year.
Venezuela and Iran are sideshows in this greater global drama. Geopolitically, the Russia-China alliance — in the wake of Putin’s disastrously miscalculated invasion of Ukraine — is bolstered by Iran and Venezuela, both of which are important sources of oil for China. Is it mere coincidence that Trump began to apply military pressure to Nicolás Maduro, and specifically the Venezuelan oil trade, at the same time as the protests in Iran? One might imagine that from a US policy perspective, protests broke out in the wrong country. But, really, it’s all the same. Trump can play Venezuela and Iran off each other. At the podium with Netanyahu, Trump disavowed seeking regime change in Iran. This is because the threat of destabilization of Iran is another reason for them to reach a deal, to save themselves.
By contrast, Maduro has now been removed from office by a US military operation, although his allies remain in control of the country. Maduro was indicted on drug trafficking charges at the end of the first Trump term in 2020, so, as far as the Administration is concerned, this is unfinished business. His capture recalls the US invasion to arrest Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989, also on drug charges. This is importantly law-enforcement action and not war. The truth is that the US is, as is said derisively, the “global cop,” and is in fact the only serious agency for law internationally. Maduro’s rights as a defendant at trial will be respected. The principles of the American Revolution whose 250th birthday we celebrate this year, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are not restricted by nationality, but are meant for everyone. Their practical reach is not a formality.
Trump’s presidency represents the coincidence of several historical crises and potential transitions out of them — a “polycrisis” that Trump is attempting to ride to a brighter American and global future. The Iranian Islamist regime coincides with the neoliberal era. Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980 amid the US embassy hostage crisis during the Islamic Revolution; the hostages were released the same day as Reagan’s Inauguration in January 1981. Later, Reagan courted a serious impeachment threat in the Iran-Contra Affair; and his worst military calamity was suffered when Iran-supported Hezbollah militants in Lebanon attacked US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds and prompting their withdrawal.
Historically, the Shah was brought down by the 1970s economic crisis that disproportionately impacted the developing world, bringing the Sandinistas to power against a US-backed dictatorship in Nicaragua in the same year. That same year, Washington successfully lured the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan to suppress an American-supported Islamist insurgency there. The ultimate collapse of the USSR and its Eastern European allied regimes could be traced to their debacle in Afghanistan, from which had risen new leadership with Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and his Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, both dissidents from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Now, the crisis of neoliberalism that ended the Cold War and was shadowed by fundamentalist revolts against developmental states seems to be bringing history full-circle. There is even some prospect for a return of the Shah — his son — to Iran: The dual Persian and Shia Muslim identity can resolve either way, or a new combination of both. Persian nationalism after exhaustion of Islamism might be a welcomed change.
Iran, like many other countries, has struggled to recover from the 2008 Financial Crisis, subsequent Great Recession, and Covid pandemic, the latter of which hit Iran particularly hard. The world economy is still hanging on American growth. After many years, it’s clear that no alternative is going to emerge, especially as Europe and China have precipitously slowed. This is the opportunity Trump is leveraging in political negotiations.
The Latin American Pink Tide has long run its course and ebbed. Chavismo has faded. Both Iran and Venezuela have bled their middle classes to massive emigration, from which they might not return but still maintain economic and political ties back home. The “Shahs of Sunset Boulevard” are waiting in Los Angeles for expanded business opportunities in Tehran. The mullahs are ready to change robes for suits. Trump is offering them the chance. He’s in no rush, but time might be running out for them.
The choice is not peace or war, but what new status quo will emerge after the conflict. What will be the outcome of the crisis? This is the end of an era. The game is over. Time to take the winnings and go home — to retire. During the Biden presidency, other actors moved to change facts on the ground in their long-term interests and as legacies. Their efforts have run aground and come to grief. Trump is providing an exit strategy to not only Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, but to Ukraine and Israel.
The world aflame is the condition for a renewed Pax Americana. That everyone is suspicious is no deterrent to Trump, but more leverage. Hamas was the first to recognize that their only hope was Trump. No mafia boss, whether Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Ukrainian, Palestinian, Israeli, or Iranian, can deal with Washington as an inherently duplicitous neoliberal technocratic policy blob. But they can deal with Trump. Can he talk them down from the ledge, or will they jump? | §
Originally published in Compact (January 5, 2026)