President Donald Trump recently marked his first 100 days with a spirited rally in Michigan, describing this period as the most dynamic and rapid in modern presidential history. However, the events of Thursday suggest that the pace might not be slowing down anytime soon.
On that day, national security adviser Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, stepped down from their roles. Observing the political landscape, it seems these resignations weren’t entirely voluntary. Discontent within the Trump administration, particularly at the Pentagon, had been simmering after the March “Signalgate” incident. This involved a group chat organized by Waltz’s team discussing military strategies against Iran-backed Houthi forces, which inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg, an editor from The Atlantic who is critical of Trump. Despite facing backlash, Waltz kept his position — until now.
But, in a surprising twist just hours later, Trump announced Waltz would be nominated as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This move seems to suggest that Trump didn’t aim to push Waltz out but instead wanted to refresh the leadership in the national security office. Interestingly, the UN ambassador role might even carry more prestige than that of a national security adviser.
In another unexpected turn, Trump revealed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would temporarily take on the national security adviser role as well. Following Waltz’s resignation, some speculated that Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff might fill the position, given his friendly ties to Trump and his more dovish stance on Iran. But this wasn’t the case — Witkoff will continue with the sensitive nuclear negotiations instead.
So much change at the top in a single day raises questions. What’s happening? It’s hard to say for sure. Given Waltz’s previous clashes with some Pentagon officials, Trump might have thought it best to reassign him. Regardless, Rubio’s double duty as both secretary of state and interim national security adviser comes at a critical moment, especially considering his ongoing criticism of Iran.
Ultimately, when it comes to negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, Trump himself remains the key player. While advisers play a role, they are merely acting on behalf of Trump’s interests.
This creates a bit of uncertainty about what Trump truly thinks regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On one hand, he’s known as a dealmaker, and recent remarks indicate a desire for an agreement with Iran, especially when framed against the backdrop of prolonged conflict. Yet, at the same time, Trump is acutely aware that Iran has previously attempted to harm him. Additionally, he has been responsible for significant military actions against Iranian threats.
More importantly, it’s vital for Trump and his team to understand that striking a deal solely for the sake of making a deal isn’t the primary objective. Instead, the focus should be on preventing Iran — a long-standing state sponsor of terrorism — from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is crucial to avoid the possibility of a regime that openly calls for violence against the U.S. gaining such dangerous powers.
A robust and enforceable deal could help achieve this outcome, but alternative methods should remain on the table as well. It’s always preferable to pursue diplomatic solutions over military action, but it’s essential to recognize that a suitable agreement might not exist. There’s a fine line in negotiations, and it’s important to avoid conflating means with ends — especially given the high stakes involved.
