In a shift from his earlier hardline approach, US President Donald Trump is now pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Iran, aiming to curb its ballistic missile program and halt its support for regional militias without resorting to direct military strikes. This strategy, however, faces strong opposition from Washington’s more hawkish voices.
Seven years after implementing a “maximum pressure” policy that included heavy sanctions and military strikes, Trump has signaled a willingness to engage with Iran’s leadership. A formal letter inviting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Pezeshkian to the negotiating table was dismissed by Tehran, which called the outreach deceptive and coercive.
However, the shifting regional landscape, including the conflict between Hamas and Israel, recent regime change in Syria, and continued US military action against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, has created an environment where a new agreement might be possible. Such a deal could potentially lift the decades-long US-led embargo that has crippled Iran’s economy.
Political analyst and author Professor Mohsen Milani suggests that Trump’s overture comes amid a belief in Washington that Iran is now significantly weaker. Some officials view this as an opportunity to push for regime change or, at the very least, a decisive reduction in Iran’s missile and drone capabilities and its influence over militant groups across the Middle East.
Despite these pressures, Tehran is unlikely to accept such demands. According to Prof. Milani, conceding to Washington’s terms would be equivalent to surrender. Trump’s demands echo those from his previous administration when he withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, arguing that it empowered Iran financially while failing to dismantle its regional network of allied militias.
While some key dynamics have changed since Trump’s last presidency, including Iran’s growing diplomatic ties with Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, serious doubts remain over whether negotiations can succeed. Former British diplomat John Sawers points to Trump’s direct approach as a potential roadblock, suggesting that Iranian negotiators’ skillful tactics may clash with Trump’s blunt negotiating style.
One potential area of compromise could be energy policy. The United States is keen to reduce global oil prices, and reintroducing Iranian crude to international markets could serve both countries’ interests. However, the specter of military action remains, with Trump reportedly willing to strike Iran if necessary.
Iran now faces a difficult decision. Pursuing a new nuclear agreement with the US could offer economic relief but also risks potential deception—continuing nuclear development in secret while negotiating a deal. Sawers warns that if Iran attempts to develop nuclear weapons alongside diplomacy, intelligence agencies, particularly Israel’s Mossad, will likely detect it. Such a scenario would almost certainly trigger military intervention.
As tensions mount, the path forward remains uncertain. Whether through diplomacy or military escalation, the next phase of US-Iran relations will have profound consequences for the region and beyond.