On Saturday, April 12, American and Iranian officials are set to resume negotiations aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. These discussions follow a letter from U.S. President Donald Trump to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, proposing a new path toward negotiations. “We have a very big meeting,” the president remarked while announcing the talks. “We’ll see what can happen.”
There are grounds for optimism regarding Trump’s diplomatic overtures. The president has demonstrated an instinctive affinity for deal-making and has expressed intentions to revive Iran’s economy. However, there are also significant reasons for concern. Even as both sides engage in talks, the Trump administration has intensified pressure on Tehran. This includes doubling down on sanctions aimed at financially crippling Iran and launching airstrikes against Iranian-affiliated Houthis in Yemen. Additionally, Trump himself has issued a tight two-month deadline for Iran to reach an agreement regarding its nuclear program, explicitly threatening military action should the talks fail.
The prospect of war between Iran and the United States is one that cannot be ignored. A military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities might temporarily delay its nuclear ambitions. However, such an action could push Iran to accelerate its nuclear program further. Retaliation from Iran would likely ensue, destabilizing an already volatile Middle East. This complexity is why even Trump has stated that “everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious.”
Achieving a negotiated settlement is far more intricate than merely commencing talks. The U.S. possesses the capability to impose severe economic distress on the Islamic Republic, wielding a formidable threat as demonstrated during Trump’s first term. Nevertheless, for these negotiations to yield diplomatic results, Trump must set realistic expectations rather than seeking full capitulation from Tehran. Iranian officials regard surrender to extreme demands as exceedingly dangerous, even more so than enduring U.S sanctions.
This doesn’t imply pressure plays no role in the diplomatic strategy with Iran. The Iranian regime is reportedly more inclined to engage with Trump’s administration than it was with Biden’s, primarily due to the overwhelming impact of sanctions on the Iranian economy. Additionally, the Islamic Republic finds itself in a uniquely vulnerable position, compounded further by years of warfare with Israel that has depleted its network of regional allies and weakened its aerial defenses.
However, U.S. pressure must be aligned with pragmatic goals. The landmark 2015 nuclear deal resulted not solely from escalating sanctions but was also facilitated by the U.S. willingness to retract the demand for the total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, the focus shifted to sharply restricting and monitoring Iran’s uranium and plutonium stockpiles. If Trump genuinely intends to finalize a deal, he must be prepared to display some degree of flexibility—much like Iran has—aspects of their nuclear or missile programs may need to be tolerated in exchange for easing sanctions and granting access to frozen assets. Failing to find a middle ground may lead to a catastrophic collapse of negotiations, risking an unwanted regional war that contradicts U.S. interests.
Reflecting on the 2015 nuclear deal, it was fundamentally structured as a clear quid pro quo arrangement. Iran agreed to implement various restrictions along with transparency measures concerning its nuclear activities, and in return, it was granted sanctions relief. However, the original accord did not impose restrictions on Iran’s missile program or its support for nonstate actors throughout the region, demands that Tehran was unwilling to entertain. Nevertheless, the deal successfully limited Iran’s nuclear activities, capping uranium enrichment and stockpiles while allowing for rigorous international monitoring of nuclear facilities.
In 2018, Trump withdrew from this significant agreement, which led to a resurgence in Iran’s nuclear program. Currently, Tehran boasts the capability to produce the fissile material necessary for a nuclear warhead in mere days, with a stockpile sufficient to create multiple weapons. Most estimates contend that if Iran chose to pursue it, the nation could develop functional nuclear bombs within just a few months. Consequently, the Islamic Republic finds itself on the precarious threshold of joining the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers, potentially becoming the tenth atomic state.
A growing number of Iranian political leaders are advocating for the development of nuclear weapons. Amid the regional decline of Iran’s network of allies—often referred to as the axis of resistance—the nation now faces challenges in asserting its capabilities to confront Israel and the U.S. Notably, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been a severe setback for Iran. Previously viewed as the key deterrent against Israel, Hezbollah’s diminished state following significant Israeli actions has prompted hard-liners in Tehran to increasingly assert the necessity of nuclear arms for national security. In contrast, Supreme Leader Khamenei appears to regard Iran’s nuclear program primarily as a bargaining tool, weighing the risks of a nuclear weapons dash with the potential for preemptive strikes from U.S. or Israeli intelligence. However, as tensions continue to rise, the pressures within Iran’s political circles may grow stronger.
Urgency is paramount for other diplomatic pathways as well. The 2015 nuclear pact included a snapback clause allowing parties to reinstate international sanctions if necessary. However, this provision is set to expire in October, making it crucial for sanctions to be addressed sooner rather than later. Without proactive measures to counter Iran’s nuclear progress, Western nations—specifically France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—might be compelled to invoke the snapback clause. Though China and Russia may attempt to obstruct such actions, they cannot apply their usual veto powers in these circumstances due to explicit elements enshrined in the nuclear deal. Consequently, Western powers could argue that Iran would once more be subject to restrictions that were in place prior to the 2015 agreement.
Iran has indicated that it would withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in the event sanctions are reinstated, thereby potentially evading formal monitoring of its nuclear program. This situation could heighten the pressures on Trump, as Israeli leaders and hardliners in Washington may intensify demands for military action against Iran. Israel, facing an existential dilemma, could even contemplate acting unilaterally, which would almost certainly engage U.S. support.
Yet, it is essential to acknowledge that a large-scale military strike would unlikely eradicate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Islamic Republic possesses extensive stocks of enriched material and has deployed advanced centrifuges in various discreet locations, making full destruction a highly uncertain endeavor for U.S. and Israeli forces. Moreover, the presence of numerous nuclear experts tasked with reviving the program post-attack amplifies the challenges faced by military action. Even the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the damage inflicted would likely be temporary, just lasting a few months. To truly dismantle the program through military means, the U.S. would have to maintain a continuous military presence, either through repeated strikes or a regime change operation, both of which carry severe and unpredictable consequences.
A military assault on Iran could also ignite regional conflict. Despite the current weakness of Iran’s allied network, the nation retains viable options for retaliation—particularly through proxy forces and its own missile arsenal. Iran has the capability to wage attacks against American assets, military personnel, and interests, as well as Iraq and the Gulf states. Recent assessments from American intelligence have underscored that—even after the past year of strife—Iran still possesses the capacity to deliver substantial retaliatory strikes and disrupt maritime shipping operations. The potential impact on global oil infrastructure could also drive prices higher, compounding economic concerns worldwide.
While the outlook may seem grim, it is crucial to acknowledge that no party stands to gain from conflict between the United States and Iran. This recognition offers a foundation for re-engaging in diplomatic efforts. The upcoming meetings scheduled to take place in Oman represent a potential step toward a more peaceful resolution. The primary objectives should include clarifying the format of future engagements and establishing a preliminary framework for a mutually acceptable endgame.
Currently, Tehran remains hesitant about engaging directly with U.S. officials, leading to a cumbersome and inefficient negotiation process. Given the gravity of the situation, the urgency of clear and face-to-face discussions is paramount. For the U.S., it is critical to approach this diplomatic effort with the understanding that demanding the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program—referred to as the “Libya model” by figures like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu— is unlikely to succeed. A focus on restrictions and transparency could make significant advancements in alleviating non-proliferation worries, effectively steering Iran away from crossing nuclear thresholds. Establishing clarity and common ground on these pivotal topics can facilitate more detailed technical discussions moving forward.
Moreover, to ensure that the negotiations proceed effectively, both Tehran and Washington must recognize one another’s broader diplomatic necessities. Iran will not engage meaningfully if it perceives a constant threat of military force. Conversely, Trump will not earnestly commit to diplomacy without the opportunity for high-level, direct talks. A meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian may offer the face time that both parties require. Understanding each side’s preferences for negotiation formats is vital to uncovering common ground.
To bolster the Oman talks and protect them from sabotage, Trump himself, likely their most prominent advocate, should consider stepping more decisively into this diplomatic endeavor. Historical accounts from Trump’s first term reveal that he takes a hardline stance on Iran, making him a formidable player in steering negotiations. If achieving a nuclear deal is his goal, Trump may find himself in a unique position to foster support among American hawks, similar to how former President Nixon opened pathways for dialogue with China.
An effective strategy could involve Trump offering a temporary halting of maximum pressure sanctions in exchange for Iran’s similarly stopping its uranium enrichment during the same timeframe. This concession could pave the way for the long-sought presidential-level meeting. If serious negotiations are to transpire, it is essential for mediators—perhaps Oman, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE—to propose this arrangement and subsequently host both high-level meetings and subsequent technical discussions.
Ultimately, the fraught history of U.S.-Iran relations is fraught with challenges shaped by deep-rooted mistrust. Yet, amidst this complexity, the possibility of an agreement remains. Iran seeks a resolution; Trump desires one. Absent successful negotiations, the likely consequence would be catastrophic for all involved.
image source from：https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/case-trump-tehran-strategy
