Alex Ward

has pretty maximalist demands.

It wants Iran to not only curb its nuclear enrichment, but also quit ballistic missile production and curb support for its regional armed proxies.

Iran at this point is basically saying we're considering concessions on the nuclear front, but nothing else.

But what it is saying to the U.S.

is if you strike us in any capacity whatsoever, Iran will retaliate at its most maximalist, in the most maximalist way.

Now, what that means is unclear.

But basically, it's kind of a you hit us, we will hit you as big as we possibly can.

What we're hearing is that also as part of the discussions, Trump has been considering what's called a more limited strike and an initial limited strike.

which could happen during the negotiations.

So basically hit a few Iranian targets, you know, government, military targets, and signal to the Iranians, you know, make a deal or else, and really heap pressure on them.

And this would be calibrated in a way that it could send a serious message, but perhaps not spark a much broader war that, of course, an all-out attack could do.

If there's one thing he's promised from his first term to his second—

It has been that even if the U.S.

does attack other countries, it would not engage in a large-scale forever war, and particularly in the Middle East.

Well, if the U.S.

were to go big against Iran, could it just happen without an Iranian retaliation or without sucking the U.S.

into a bigger conflict?

I mean, it could, but most analysts I've talked to say that that's unlikely, that in fact going big and trying to topple the regime will lead to instability in Iran and require a continued U.S.

engagement.

And so there's a lot of concern or there are questions that maybe this talk of negotiations has been a smokescreen all along for the U.S.