Dr. Ahmed Moustafa 
The term “Iranian carrot” refers to a strategic geopolitical and economic incentive that the United States, under former President Donald Trump, sought to extract from Iran during nuclear talks held in Muscat, Oman, and Rome, Italy. These discussions, part of a broader effort to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for economic relief and integration into global markets.
The “carrot” symbolizes the promise of economic benefits, including access to Iran’s vast energy resources, regional influence, and a potentially lucrative market, which could offset the costs of compliance for both Iran and the U.S. The talks in Muscat and Rome were critical, as they represented a rare opportunity for direct diplomacy between the two nations, which have been adversaries for decades. The third round in Muscat was expected to build on the progress made in the earlier sessions, though the outcome remained uncertain due to deep-seated mistrust and competing interests.
The involvement of the U.S. in these negotiations, particularly under Trump’s leadership, raised eyebrows among regional stakeholders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s reported unease with the constructive dialogue between the U.S. and Iran stems from Israel’s long-standing concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its regional influence. Israel has consistently viewed Iran as an existential threat, and any perceived rapprochement between Washington and Tehran could undermine Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s “dizziness” may have been exacerbated by fears that a U.S.-Iran deal could weaken Israel’s leverage in addressing its own security concerns, particularly regarding Iran’s proxy networks in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s political base in Israel has historically been skeptical of any diplomatic overtures to Iran, which could have domestic political implications for the Israeli leader.
The question of whether Trump intended to punish Netanyahu for failing to fulfill a promise to displace Gazans within two weeks in March 2025 is speculative but worthy of examination. While there is no direct evidence linking Trump’s Iran policy to such a specific timeline or action, it is plausible that Trump’s administration viewed Netanyahu’s inability to deliver on certain commitments as a failure to align with U.S. strategic objectives.
Trump’s foreign policy often prioritized transactional relationships, where allies were expected to reciprocate U.S. support with tangible actions. If Netanyahu failed to meet expectations, particularly on issues like Gaza, it could have strained the U.S.-Israel relationship, potentially influencing Trump’s approach to Iran. However, it is important to note that the displacement of Gazans is a highly complex and sensitive issue, involving humanitarian, legal, and geopolitical dimensions that cannot be reduced to a simple timeline or promise.
The notion that Iran promised Trump access to its greater market in the Middle East, second only to Egypt, to rescue the U.S. economy from stagflation, is an intriguing hypothesis that warrants closer analysis. Iran’s economy, despite being heavily sanctioned, boasts significant potential due to its vast oil and gas reserves, strategic location, and a big consumer market. If the U.S. were granted preferential access to this market, it could provide a much-needed economic boost, particularly if the U.S. economy were indeed heading toward stagflation, as some economic reports have suggested.
Stagflation, characterized by stagnant economic growth coupled with rising inflation, poses a significant challenge to any administration, and Trump’s team may have viewed a deal with Iran as a means to stimulate economic activity. However, such a promise from Iran would have required significant concessions, including the lifting of sanctions and security guarantees, which would have been politically controversial in both the U.S. and Iran.
The comparison of the Iranian market to Egypt’s is telling, as Egypt represents one of the largest and most dynamic economies in the Arab world. If Iran were to open its market to U.S. businesses, it could potentially rival Egypt’s economic significance in the region, offering lucrative opportunities in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, and consumer goods.
This could have been particularly appealing to Trump, who often emphasized the importance of economic deals that benefited U.S. corporations and workers. However, the realization of such a vision would have depended on the willingness of both sides to compromise and the ability of the U.S. to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
Finally, the “Iranian carrot” represents a multifaceted incentive that Trump sought to leverage through nuclear talks in Muscat and Rome. While the exact contours of the negotiations remain classified, it is clear that the stakes were high, involving not only nuclear proliferation but also economic and geopolitical interests. Netanyahu’s unease, Trump’s potential punitive measures, and the promise of market access all highlight the intricate web of motivations and consequences that defined these talks. As the third round of negotiations approaches, the international community will be closely watching to see whether the U.S. and Iran can find common ground, and whether the “carrot” of economic cooperation will be sufficient to overcome decades of mistrust and hostility.
to all.. 
