US President Donald Trump is looking to revive talks with Iran to secure a nuclear deal that would dissuade Tehran from potentially developing nuclear weapons, but the path to negotiations is challenging.
In early May, Trump sent a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, reportedly through an Emirati diplomat, proposing nuclear talks with demands for Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, halt its support for regional militias, and comply within two months for sanctions relief.
Iran rejected direct negotiations through a letter delivered via Oman. Tensions escalated when Trump said he would bomb Iran if it refused talks, with Iran reportedly summoning a Swiss envoy representing the US in Tehran to issue a warning over Trump's threat.
Khamenei's adviser, Ali Larijani, stated that Iran would have no choice but to pursue nuclear weapons if attacked, with France's Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warning that military confrontation seemed nearly inevitable if talks failed.
A US return to potential negotiations with Iran follows Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement between Iran, the UN Security Council's five permanent members, Germany, and the European Union (EU), aimed at limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
After the US withdrawal, Iran reportedly scaled back its commitments, boosting uranium enrichment and limiting inspection compliance.
However, with Trump's return to the White House and rapidly changing dynamics in the Middle East, the US seeks to revive the nuclear deal with Iran. The potential return to negotiations comes at a time when the Middle East has undergone a dramatic shift.
Following Hamas' 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, which killed about 1,200 people and took 250 hostages, Israel launched a devastating war on Gaza, which has so far killed over 50,000 Palestinians and destroyed the coastal enclave, leading to charges of genocide from legal and UN experts.
Over the course of the last 18 months, Israel also launched a deadly war on Lebanon against Hezbollah, assassinating the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. In Yemen, the Houthi group launched a military campaign to disrupt Red Sea commercial shipping in solidarity with Palestinians, while Iran and Israel also twice directly targeted each other in missile barrages and airstrikes for the first time.
In Syria, a coalition led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) ousted President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, depriving Iran of a key regional ally.
Trump has recently escalated the US maximum pressure campaign on Iran, issuing more Iran-related sanctions and threatening force if Tehran refuses talks.
However, this tough stance on Iran isn't new; it's an incremental continuation of the policy that has defined US-Iran relations since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iran's nuclear program, initially supported by the US in the 1950s, shifted after the 1979 Revolution, raising Western concerns over weaponisation. Despite claiming peaceful aims, secret facilities and uranium enrichment led to international scrutiny.
The 2015 JCPOA imposed a 3.67% limit in exchange for sanctions relief, but the US withdrawal in 2018 spurred Iran to increase enrichment to 60%. Between 2010 and 2020, five Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated, with Iran blaming the US and Israel. Both countries have denied involvement.
Trump now seeks to leverage maximum pressure on Iran to secure a deal ensuring it pursues only civilian nuclear programs, despite Iran's firm stance that it will never seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons.
Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The New Arab that while both the US and Iran have taken tough positions, they are likely to shift their stance, as both have incentives to reach a deal.
The Trump administration seeks to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, stabilise the region, and avoid being drawn into conflicts to focus on other global priorities like East Asia. Meanwhile, Iran aims to avert military confrontation, ease economic hardships through sanctions relief, and bolster domestic support amid growing public discontent with its leadership.
"Despite tough rhetoric, both sides will want to engage and reach an agreement. But their positions on key issues remain far apart, making it difficult," he said.
Potential negotiations between the US and Iran may include limiting uranium enrichment, addressing plutonium production, investigating past military nuclear activities, restricting Iran's ballistic missile development, determining sanctions relief, implementing monitoring mechanisms, and setting the agreement's duration.
"Iran has made it clear that negotiations over missiles are non-negotiable. However, even the JCPOA framework addressed warheads as part of the negotiations," Mehran Haghirian, director of regional initiatives at the think tank Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, told TNA.
In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, "Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons," including launches using such technology, for eight years post-JCPOA Adoption Day or until the IAEA confirms Iran's compliance, whichever comes first.
At the diplomatic level, ahead of potential negotiations, the US favours direct talks, while Iran prefers indirect negotiations.
Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group's project director for Iran, told TNA that indirect negotiations have little chance of success, as only a top-down approach in Trump's world could lead to meaningful progress.
"Trump wants a verified nuclear peace agreement ensuring Iran never pursues nuclear weapons, while his administration favours a Libya-style dismantlement, which is deemed impossible," he said, adding Trump "can deliver on a deal in a way that no other US president in recent history has been able to," though maximum pressure tactics may not work.
Timing is crucial in these potential talks, with Trump setting a deadline for a new nuclear deal in May.
Europe plans to trigger the UN sanctions snapback by July 2025, aiming to avoid Russia's Security Council presidency in October. After that, reinstating sanctions would require new resolutions subject to vetoes by Russia and China. The snapback mechanism under the JCPOA also expires in October 2025, allowing sanctions to be reimposed if no new deal is reached.
Amid this, the likelihood of military confrontation if the US attacks Iran remains uncertain.
Farzan Sabet, a managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told TNA that while Trump's threats are realistic, the US administration will likely exhaust economic, diplomatic, and other options before considering a direct strike on Iran's nuclear program.
While the US can successfully conduct such a strike and outmatches Iran militarily, the administration will think carefully about pursuing action that potentially results in a protracted military conflict. If military action does occur, it will likely start with limited strikes, with a high risk of further escalation based on Iran's response.
"Iran's military power has weakened, but it still retains missiles, drones, and irregular warfare capabilities, allowing it to effectively strike many US assets in the region," he said.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is deploying two aircraft carriers to the Middle East as the US intensifies airstrikes on the Houthis to stop their attacks on Red Sea shipping and further maximising pressure on Iran.
While Iran rejects talks under Trump's maximum pressure policy, Einhorn argues that such a policy on Iran is compatible with a potential deal, as it helped achieve the JCPOA in 2015. However, it failed under Trump's first term due to unrealistic goals.
In a second Trump administration, realism will be key. While reducing Iran's enrichment capacity and extending its time to produce weapons-grade uranium is feasible, eliminating its nuclear infrastructure entirely is not.
"A key factor will be the nature of Iran's nuclear program. Both sides might agree on a strictly peaceful program for civil use, with constraints to prevent weaponisation. This could serve as common ground," he said.
Amid Iran's domestic debate on how to negotiate with the US, Sabet explained that some favoured direct or at least indirect talks with the US, while others opposed them entirely. However, Trump's pressure tactics have narrowed this divide.
"Iran's leaders are still open to talks, but Trump's rhetoric and action have made even those favouring negotiations less proactive and enthusiastic than before," he said, adding that direct talks are unlikely in the short term as Iran seeks a nuclear deal without complete dismantlement, while the US demands broader concessions. However, as Iran's leaders confront the reality that they face, such talks may become possible.
Haghirian, who thinks an agreement is likely by October, explained that many in Iran, including policymakers, see an opportunity to engage with the Trump administration to resolve the Iran issue.
"Even if they agreed to direct talks, I don't think that would have happened overnight. It takes time. But initiating that is important. At the same time, no one wants to enter a two-and-a-half-year negotiation only to end up with JCPOA 2.0.," he said.
"Due to the October deadline for the JCPOA, everything has to be done by then. That makes the timeline quite short, and it forces everyone to work within the confines of the situation they're dealing with."
External actors, including regional players like Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, have been open to mediating indirect negotiations, while international supporters of Iran's nuclear program, such as China and Russia, also back a negotiated nuclear solution.
However, Vaez explained that while China and Russia coordinate with Iran on issues like avoiding sanctions snapback and preventing Iran's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as such actions would threaten their interests and create instability in the region, they don't necessarily want the issue resolved and have not taken serious action so far.
"An isolated Iran would become dependent on China and eliminate Russia's energy competition, making the continuation of the status quo advantageous for both. Therefore, they don't aim to resolve the crisis but prefer it not to escalate," he said.
While the US may consult Israel on its deal with Iran, it's unlikely Israel could veto it, as Trump is focused on negotiating a deal that aligns with US interests.
Dario Sabaghi is a freelance journalist interested in human rights. Follow him on Twitter: @DarioSabaghi
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Will the US cut a nuclear deal with Iran or go to war? )
Also on site :