The resumed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States stand out as one of the most significant diplomatic developments following Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Centred on Iran’s nuclear program, these relations have become one of the most complex and multi-layered issues in international politics over the past two decades.
The JCPOA, signed in 2015, provided for the easing of economic sanctions in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear activities. However, the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 inflicted deep damage on the Tehran–Washington relationship and the broader trust between Iran and the Western world. Since then, heavy U.S. sanctions have severely impacted Iran’s economy but have failed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.
With Trump’s re-election in 2024, the two countries have opened a new diplomatic chapter. A letter from President Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in March 2025, followed by talks in Muscat and Rome in April, paved the way for the revival of long-stalled dialogue. Although negotiations unfold in a far more challenging and complex geopolitical environment than in the past, occasional positive signals from Iranian and U.S. officials keep hopes alive and raise expectations that a comprehensive agreement may still be achievable.
The Reconstruction of the Negotiation Process
During his first presidency, Donald Trump sought to neutralise Iran through a range of policy tools. His approach, known as “maximum pressure,” was rooted in an aggressive foreign policy strategy that combined sweeping economic sanctions with personal diplomacy. In 2018, after withdrawing from the JCPOA, Trump imposed extensive sanctions on Iran, cutting oil exports, restricting access to foreign currency, and designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This strategy aimed to economically cripple Iran while simultaneously inviting it back to the negotiating table—on U.S. terms.
While Trump escalated pressure through sharp rhetoric and threats—often expressed on Twitter—he also signalled openness to diplomacy, stating his willingness to meet with Iranian officials.
Having failed to achieve its intended outcomes during the first term, Trump adopted an even harder stance toward Iran in his second term. In a statement made in March, Trump explicitly kept the military option on the table, warning Tehran that “we will strike if necessary.” Simultaneously, by targeting Iranian-backed Houthi forces, the administration aims to weaken one of Iran’s key proxies outside its borders.
Iran’s Weakening Regional Position
It is evident that Trump’s recent open threats, combined with Iran’s ongoing economic problems, have pushed Tehran to re-engage in nuclear negotiations. In recent times, Iran has experienced significant setbacks in both its regional proxy network and military capabilities.
Israel’s intensified military operations against Hezbollah in 2024 severely weakened the military and logistical capacity of Iran’s most powerful proxy in Lebanon. During the same period, the fall of the Assad regime to opposition forces in Syria led to the closure of key land and air corridors used by Iran to supply Hezbollah with arms and ammunition. This development has drastically reduced Iran’s strategic depth and regional influence.
Moreover, tension with Israel in April and October 2024 resulted in significant damage to Iran’s air defence systems and military production infrastructure. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian territory further undermined Tehran’s defensive capabilities and its ability to effectively support proxy forces.
Although Iran continues to engage with proxy groups in Yemen and Iraq, their military effectiveness and Iran’s control over them have diminished compared to previous years. This growing geostrategic vulnerability has compelled Tehran to seek diplomatic solutions over military confrontations.
Narrow Deal or Comprehensive Compromise?
Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy, combined with shifting regional dynamics, has placed a significant diplomatic and economic strain on Iran, ultimately compelling Tehran to return to the negotiating table. Iran has largely opted to negotiate in this renewed process, using Oman as a mediator. In contrast, the United States has adopted a different diplomatic approach by publicising that direct contact has occasionally occurred. This divergence in methodology has created a degree of information asymmetry and revealed fundamental differences in the negotiating strategies of the two sides.
Despite these differences, negotiations were held in April in Muscat, Oman, and Rome, Italy. According to statements from both parties, the talks seem to proceed constructively, and technical matters are being addressed—signalling that the dialogue has reached a meaningful phase.
A clear sign that the negotiations are proceeding rather positively is the ceasefire that occurred between the U.S. and the Houthis, mediated by Oman. For Washington, the ceasefire offers a strategic “win” by halting Houthi attacks on American ships, allowing President Trump to claim progress ahead of his visit to the Gulf. For Tehran, the ceasefire represents a chance to preserve influence through the Houthis, who remain a key proxy for Iran in the region.
Meanwhile, a shroud of secrecy continues to accompany the U.S.-Iran talks. Iran’s preference for cautious and mostly secret negotiations can be interpreted as a strategy to balance domestic political pressures, particularly from hardliners. The Tehran leadership aims to mitigate backlash from the public and regime elites by limiting public exposure. However, a more transparent and public-facing approach has been adopted on the U.S. side. The Trump administration seeks to portray the negotiations as a foreign policy achievement, using it to bolster its image and gain public support.
In the current round of negotiations, the United States is pursuing a more comprehensive and enduring agreement—one that not only restricts Iran’s nuclear activities but also addresses its ballistic missile program and regional influence. Washington is demanding a complete halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, the dismantling of its advanced centrifuge infrastructure, and the closure of all potential pathways to nuclear weapons production. Additionally, it insists that Iran’s support for regional proxy groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis be included in the negotiations.
Iran, however, continues to assert that its right to enrich uranium is “inalienable,” as outlined by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and maintains that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes. Tehran firmly rejects any demands that go beyond the limitations established in the original JCPOA and insists that its ballistic missile program and regional policies should not be part of the nuclear negotiations. Iran’s primary objective remains to lift economic sanctions and secure guarantees for the economic benefits this would entail.
Within this framework, the stark differences in each side’s negotiating strategies and priorities add to the process’s complexity and fragility. Israel’s persistent security concerns have made it essential for the United States to incorporate regional security dimensions into any potential agreement.
Iran and Nuclear Enrichment
Iran’s nuclear program represents Tehran’s most significant leverage in the current negotiations. Since 2021, Iran has accumulated uranium enriched up to 60%, positioning itself technically to reach weapons-grade enrichment levels of 90% within weeks if it so chooses. This advancement brings Iran dangerously close to the nuclear weapons threshold and poses a direct challenge to the security priorities of both Israel and the United States. Tehran is leveraging this advanced nuclear capability not only as a means of deterrence but also as a powerful bargaining chip in its dialogue with Washington.
As a result, today, Iran–U.S. nuclear negotiations are at a crossroads, shaped by both crisis and opportunity. The trajectory of these talks will be shaped not only by the political will of Tehran and Washington but also by the actions of regional stakeholders like Israel and the broader volatility of the international environment.
Israel’s firm opposition to any deal and its resolve to curtail Iran’s nuclear capabilities remain among the most significant obstacles, increasing the risk of direct conflict, should negotiations collapse. The surprise ceasefire agreement between Washington and the Houthis has exacerbated the concerns of the Netanyahu government, which expressed dissatisfaction with this move, particularly because it was announced without prior notice to Israeli officials.
Israel also views Trump’s removal of Waltz from his position as U.S. National Security Advisor with caution. As the Trump administration presses forward with Omani-mediated talks with Tehran, Waltz reportedly irritated the president by taking a more hawkish stance favouring military action while conniving with Netanyahu behind the scenes without keeping the American president informed.
Despite Israel’s manoeuvres, Iran’s dire economic situation and diminished regional influence suggest a growing need for a diplomatic resolution. If both sides can moderate their maximalist positions—if Washington can propose a phased approach to sanctions relief, and Tehran can accept a mechanism that ensures the delivery of economic benefits—then the prospects for a limited but workable agreement are promising. Conversely, a failure to compromise could entrench the deadlock, potentially triggering new rounds of escalation.
