President Trump’s consolidation of control over foreign policy into a small group of envoys has raised concern among some national security analysts about his dealings with Iran.
The U.S. has been without a special envoy to Iran since Mr. Trump took office in January.
“One need not have a special envoy to have an effective Iran policy, but I think it sends an important political signal,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Iran Program.
While the president has appointed emissaries for negotiating with U.S. adversaries, critics in the foreign affairs community warn that the group is too small amid diplomatic crises and wars churning around the world.
Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy, took the lead on U.S.-Iran diplomacy in the spring, heading up five rounds of talks.
Those talks, which were tenuous from the start, disintegrated following Israel’s strikes on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities in June. America’s B-2 bombers followed by obliterating the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuke sites that month.
Robert Malley was the previous special envoy to Iran, appointed in 2021 by former President Joseph R. Biden. He stepped down in March 2023 over allegations he misused classified information. His deputy, Abram Paley, a career foreign service officer, took over for Mr. Malley and has held the position ever since, according to the State Department’s website.
However, diplomatic sources tell The Washington Times that Mr. Paley has not worked in the office since January.
The State Department declined to comment on Mr. Paley’s employment status.
Brian Hook served as U.S. special representative for Iran during Mr. Trump’s first administration, following the president’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Obama-era nuclear deal that gave Tehran vast sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear activities.
This time around, Mr. Trump has appointed other key emissaries in the region.
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack is the special envoy for Syria. Morgan Ortagus was sworn in as deputy special envoy to the Middle East in January, under Mr. Witkoff. Ms. Ortagus departed the position six months later amid a shakeup within Mr. Trump’s tight-knit national security team.
With that as a backdrop, some analysts contend the lack of a dedicated special envoy for Iran is consistent with a strategy of consolidation within the second Trump administration, which hopes to stamp each diplomatic move with a seal of approval from the Oval Office.
“In term two, I think it’s quite clear the stamp the president has put on policy,” Mr. Taleblu said. “Now, normally that means creating a special envoy, but in this case it means an even more controlled process.”
In addition to leading talks with Iran, Mr. Witkoff has acted as a key communication channel between Moscow and Washington as the Trump administration works to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Mr. Witkoff has also been deeply involved in negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza and a hostage release deal involving Hamas.
Mr. Taleblu added that the Iran envoy position is not essential for good policy. However, the lack of a dedicated envoy may suggest that the Trump administration doesn’t have a concrete plan for its strategy toward Iran.
“After all of these successes, the question now should be raised: After success, what? Because the worst thing after success is indifference, because indifference allows the adversary time and space and capital to rebuild,” he said.
Since the June war, Iran’s diplomatic situation has worsened. In August, the E3 nations of France, Germany and the U.K. triggered the snapback mechanism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which could see the reimposition of U.N.-backed sanctions on Iran. E3 triggered it after determining that Iran didn’t make significant progress toward its demands, notably that it restart negotiations with the U.S.
Iranian leader Ali Khamenei reportedly asked President Masoud Pezeshkian this month to approach Qatari mediators to restart negotiations with the U.S. Yet further talks could be a hard pill to swallow for some Iranian hardliners who see America’s zero enrichment demands as a nonstarter.
For some experts, the Iran nuclear issue is too important for Mr. Trump to not have a dedicated team. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute, said the White House has not communicated a clear vision for what U.S.-Iran relations should look like.
“Nobody can claim that it’s easy. It’s a pretty formidable set of challenges. But what I’m pointing out is President Trump has never had a clear-cut vision in terms of what he wants out of his Iran policy,” he said. “The Israelis might take action just like they did in Doha and force Trump’s hand and bring him back into a war with Iran. That’s one of the dangers of having others set the agenda. If I were in the Trump White House, I’d worry about not being at the top of this.”
While Mr. Vatanka conceded that the White House may have shifted its diplomatic focus to more pressing issues for the time being, he remains skeptical about a larger plan at work.
“It could well be the case that the U.S. has so much else on its plate,” Mr. Vatanka said. “Maybe the Trump administration has come up with an amazing new formula where things are done differently. You don’t need all these people sitting in cubicles doing things. You just get CENTCOM to deliver the bombs. But if you are measuring commitment on the part of the Trump administration to the diplomatic track in terms of putting U.S. resources into the U.S. end of the process, that’s not there.”
Others warn that a complacent attitude toward Iran could spell disaster in the future. Daniel Roth, research director for United Against Nuclear Iran, stressed that letting diplomacy fall by the wayside could endanger the U.S. and the Middle East.
“Iran cannot be trusted, and that has been borne out since 1979. There are dozens of other states that have nuclear enrichment, and nobody has a problem with it.” Mr. Roth said. “[Iran] would like to pursue nukes so they can pursue their own regional ambitions. And all of those ambitions are very bad for America and its allies.”
While Iran has maintained for years that its nuclear program is purely for civilian and peaceful purposes, international watchdogs say Tehran has far exceeded commercial enrichment levels and is only a step away from developing nuclear weapons. This, Mr. Roth contends, should be enough to scare anyone interested in containing the spread of nukes.
“Say you think Iran is a paper tiger. You may be concerned about other countries wanting to acquire nuclear weapons. Every Arab country, Egypt, has said explicitly that ‘if Iran gets nuclear weapons, we get to have them too.’”
