Following years of volatility and cautious engagement, a surprising diplomatic venture between Trump and Tehran has been unfolding with the nuclear negotiations back on the table. Will it be deal, or no deal?
On 20 July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”), also known as the Iranian nuclear deal, between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the multilateral group of states known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of American under President Barack Hussein Obama) was endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 2231. The agreement came into inception with the goal of limiting Iran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Those involved believed that the deal would positively contribute to regional and international peace and security whilst ensuring that Iran would under no circumstance ever seek to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.
The deal was arguably successful in mitigating the risk of nuclear proliferation, as Iran complied with its terms, including a 15-year agreement to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98% to 300kg, and to limit enrichment to 3.67% – suitable for civilian use but well below weapons grade.
However, the JCPOA was met with major critics, especially President Donald J. Trump who in his first term in office called it a “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made”. The USA unilaterally left the deal on 8 May 2018 and re-imposed sanctions on Iran.
The USA’s withdrawal from the deal further aggravated the already poor American-Iran relations. The abrupt deal disintegration prompted Iran to breach the agreed upon terms by lifting the cap on its uranium stockpile and increasing its enrichment beyond the allowed 3.67%. Since 2021, following the killing by the USA of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Israel’s assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian nuclear physicist who was widely regarded as being the chief of the Iranian nuclear program, the Islamic Republic began enriching uranium to 20%.
On 3 March 2025, Rafael Mariano Grossi, who is the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”), an intergovernmental organisation that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, noted that “Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U-235 has increased to 275 kg, up from 182 kg in the past quarter. Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching to this level”.
Nonetheless, in an erratic turn of events, following the hiatus since the American withdrawal from the JCPOA, President Trump announced on 7 March 2025 that he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, proposing negotiations for a new nuclear deal. The letter included a two-month deadline for reaching a new agreement and warned of potential military consequences if Iran did not engage in talks. Initially, Iran called Trump’s proposal for negotiations “a deception” however, Omani mediation helped shift the tone and create a diplomatic space for discussions regarding uranium enrichment limits and sanctions relief. Iranian officials underlined that Tehran is willing to negotiate some curbs on its nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions.
Israeli Scepticism
After talks in Rome in early April 2025, the USA and Iran were pursuing an accord that would see Tehran being free of sanctions, while retaining its “ability to develop peaceful nuclear energy”, as stated by In response to the ongoing negotiations, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the only “good deal” would be one that removed “all of the (nuclear) infrastructure” akin to the 2003 agreement that Libya made with the West that saw a complete elimination of the country’s weapons of mass destruction program. Netanyahu also affirmed that he underlined to Trump that any nuclear agreement reached with Iran should also prevent Tehran from developing ballistic missiles. Claims coming from Israeli officials and Netanyahu in regard to the ongoing nuclear deal demonstrate their broader scepticism towards the negotiations highlighting the threat to Israel posed by a nuclear and militarily capable Iran.
The differing stances between Trump and Netanyahu towards negotiations with Iran indicate a potential crack in the once believed unyielding alliance. Trump’s potential shift away from Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear issue poses an undeniable threat to the Israeli leader’s regime, which has long relied on Trump’s allegiance – an allegiance that now appears increasingly fickle, at a time when his administration faces mounting opposition inside the country and wages a destructive war in the Gaza Strip.
Deal?
One could suggest that a successful Iran nuclear deal will exude obvious perks to both Washington and Tehran. However, a destabilising undercurrent casts a dark shadow over the possibility that its outcome could potentially spark a ‘new fire’ in a region already crippled with war and conflict.
For Trump, a positive outcome will be Iran being in agreement to limiting its uranium enrichment program – with the primary aim of preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon and thus halting a potential spark of nuclear proliferation in the region. To reach such an agreement, Trump must abandon unrealistic nuclear objectives such as a complete disarmament by Iran, which has been underlined as a necessity for the deal to take place by Netanyahu and other hardline critics of the negotiations. As a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”), an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, Iran is legally obligated not to acquire nuclear weapons. However, it is permitted to develop nuclear technology for energy and other civil purposes under the IAEA safeguards, which Iran claims it continues to observe.
Following a few rounds of discussions, Trump seems to be toying with the business incentives of an Iran nuclear deal, recognizing the potential benefits whilst maintaining his campaign against Washington’s long-term adversary to adhere to his regional security concerns. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that a successful new nuclear deal could give American businesses what he claims is a “trillion-dollar economic opportunity”. The foreign minister pitched Tehran’s nuclear program as a billion-dollar investment prospect for the USA appealing to Trump’s deal making instincts.
For Tehran, a positive outcome will relieve the Islamic Republic from decades of rigorous sanctions imposed by the USA and the West which have been inflicted in an attempt to cripple the country’s economic development and thus limit its regional influence.
The lifting of sanctions on Iran will bolster the country’s political legitimacy with Washington which could eventually spark the revitalization of trade and investment with countries who were originally hesitant to do so. However, this raises the question regarding the sustainability of the deal as it contradicts Trump’s hardline ideology against Iran, which has sought to deter and halt the regime’s grasp on the region and its support of the Palestinian cause through its allies in the Axis of Resistance.
Undoubtedly, Iran has been burdened with significant losses and setbacks following its support for Palestine, which many argue has weakened its foothold on the region. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the assassination of high-ranking leaders of Hezbollah, including the long-serving Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, also serve as a major challenge to the Islamic Republic. The dissolution of significant allies within the Axis of Resistance means that Iran needs to revise its military strategy to sustain a successful deterrence equation with its adversaries.
Trump may view Iran’s diplomatic efforts as a ploy to leverage the nuclear deal as a means to revive and reassert itself both financially and militarily, underlining why the negotiations appear to remain fragile and stalled.
No Deal?
Some may say that a few rounds of mediated negotiations emanate a promising sign towards orchestrating a successful deal. However, Trump’s hardline stance has demonstrated his lack of cooperation and diplomacy with Iran as he looks to continue to alienate the country from the global political arena. A fourth round of talks between the USA and Iran, which had been due to take place in Rome on 3 May 2025, have been postponed.
A failure to reach a deal will push Trump towards likely coordinating with the E3 countries (France, Britain and Germany) to restore the UN Security Council’s sanctions and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program using a veto-proof mechanism that is part of Resolution 2231 – known as a snapback – which expires in October 2025. The USA, having withdrawn from the JCPOA, cannot trigger snapback. However, the E3 countries are already considering triggering it by August if no substantial deal is reached. Jean-Noel Barrot, France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, stated “it goes without saying that when the Iranian nuclear deal expires in a few weeks, if European security interests are not guaranteed, we will not hesitate for a single second to reapply all the sanctions that were lifted 10 years ago…these sanctions would then permanently close off Iranian access to technology, investment, and the European market, with devastating effects on the country’s economy”.
In response to a potential disintegration of diplomacy and a reversal of stringent sanctions, Iran could likely follow with a threat to withdraw from the NPT as retaliation and thus unbinding itself from the treaty that provides a legal basis for holding the Islamic Republic accountable to its non-proliferation commitment. A possible Iranian withdrawal from the NPT would certainly hike regional tensions; Israel could view this move as a greenlight to exercise a military response and attack the country’s nuclear facilities in order to protect its national interests. This could spark an outbreak of instability leading to a regional war.
As negotiations proceed, a successful deal hinges on mastering a formula that satisfies the objectives of both Trump and Iran; a formula that increasingly feels like a distant ‘pipe dream’.
This analysis is a contribution made by Yara Mahdi, Senior Analyst at SET Advisory.