Iran Deal 2.0 is taking shape. It looks disturbingly similar to Iran Deal 1.0, where President Obama gave Iran access to billions in frozen funds for its radical Islamist regime and proxies.
As nuclear inspections and final terms are negotiated, criticism is coming from all sides. Former Obama official Susan Rice has called the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) “egregious.” Former George W. Bush official Marc Thiessen compared it to offering a Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany while the Nazis were still in power. Meanwhile, Iran’s negotiators are openly celebrating what they see as Trump’s failure.
But all of that misses the real story.
Trump’s failure to impose his predicted surrender despite “having all the cards” is not evolving at the negotiating table. It happened months ago when he threatened to destroy Iran without enlisting allies or political support at home. He told the American people what he would do and failed to tell them why.
In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt understood the isolationist mood of the country while war was raging in Europe. He did the hard work of preparing the country long before Pearl Harbor by explaining the stakes in plain, emotional, unavoidable terms. He used fear to capture the country’s attention and eventual commitment to engage.
Trump did none of that. Constantly repeating “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon” is not a strategy; it’s a slogan. Slogans don’t create urgency. They don’t create understanding. They don’t create fear.
And that is a communications failure. Americans are not afraid of a nuclear Iran.
Our polling of 1,100 Americans shows just how disconnected the public has become from reality. Forty-two percent of Americans aged 18 to 34 (roughly 78 million people) believe a nuclear attack by Iran in Europe or the Middle East would have a neutral or even positive impact on their lives. Over a third think stock market values would hold steady or even rise.
That’s not ignorance. It’s a failure of leadership.
Trump never connected the dots. He never explained the “why” we should fear a nuclear event – even one thousands of miles away, which would send shockwaves through energy markets, crush global trade, spike inflation, destroy home values, and hammer retirement savings.
Instead, Trump talked in abstractions. With a heavy dose of bravado, he assured America this war would be at most a nuisance in their daily lives.
Back in reality, what Americans did understand was pain at the pump. And even there, the administration’s message collapsed. Saying higher gas prices are “worth it” means nothing if you haven’t first explained why people should sacrifice for a risk that is frighteningly unaffordable.
If you want support, you don’t hide the consequences. You spell them out.
Describe what may happen when a regime that chants “Death to America” gets a nuclear weapon and a delivery system to match. Describe what could happen to global markets. Describe what could happen to supply chains, business operations, employment. Describe what could happen to American families trying to make ends meet. Make fear of the possible real.
Currently, the president is retreating from his earlier threats. Ballistic missiles, once a red line, are suddenly negotiable.
The justification? It’s only “fair” that Iran has the same weapons its neighbors possess.
That argument is not just weak; it is absurd. Iran’s neighbors are not the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. They are not operating under a doctrine that glorifies martyrdom and destruction. If Trump can accept the Iranian logic of neighborhood missile “fairness,” then neighboring Pakistan – equipped with nuclear weapons – justifies Iran having nukes as well.
Trump is not alone in this failure. For decades, Washington has operated under the same big issue delusions, assuming Americans already understand the problem. But most don’t. From Iran to social security to the national debt, policymakers consistently skip the hard part of explaining the problem. They jump straight to the solution, which often requires sacrifice. Then they wonder why so few are on board.
If leaders refuse to clearly explain risks and real-world consequences, then public support will always be weak, fragmented, and fleeting. And the opportunity to pursue the solution with a supportive electorate is denied. In this war, that is Trump’s real failure.
Rick Berman is president of RBB Strategies.
