As President Trump renews talks with Iran over its nuclear program, confusion has emerged over what kind of deal the administration wants.

The president’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, has given mixed messages on how hardline the U.S. negotiating position will be, stating in an April 14 interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that capping Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent was an option (90 percent is required for a nuclear weapon). Yet the following day, Witkoff announced on X that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

Which position the administration takes may determine whether the talks succeed or fail.

Hawks are salivating at the prospects of the latter.

One reason the failure of these talks seems not to bother the foreign policy hawks in Washington is because they believe there is a relatively easy and low-cost alternative to forestall Iran’s nuclear ambitions: bombing. In January, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham dismissed the idea of restraining Iran through diplomacy, giving it a “one in trillion chance” of succeeding. Military action, he said, had a “90 percent chance.”

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton recently

© The Hill