US President Donald Trump’s recent statements on the possibility of reviving a nuclear agreement with Iran have reignited debates over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and regional security in the Middle East. Iran is inching closer to nuclear capability, with enrichment infrastructure decentralized across fortified underground sites, and the stakes for international security have never been higher. President Trump aims to position himself as a master dealmaker, capable of extracting significant concessions from Iran, but experts remain skeptical as to whether his strategy can yield tangible results.
President Trump’s approach to Iran has oscillated between economic pressure and the promise of negotiation. Meir Litvak, director of the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, told The Media Line that the president sees himself as “the ultimate dealmaker” and remains convinced that he can secure a better agreement than the one negotiated under President Barack Obama.
In 2015, President Obama signed a deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under that plan, Iran agreed to put limits on its nuclear program and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its nuclear facilities. In return, it received relief from international sanctions.
We’re facing a situation where Iran is much closer to nuclear capability.
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the agreement, which he called “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” Litvak explained that the president aimed to apply pressure on Iran to force the country to agree to a better deal. That attempt failed, he said, “and now we’re facing a situation where Iran is much closer to nuclear capability.”
International watchdogs estimate that Iran has enriched uranium to levels rapidly approaching weapons-grade, with the country poised to start producing nuclear weapons within weeks.
Nima Baheli, an Iranian political analyst, said that President Trump’s strategy may be focused on reducing China’s influence in the Middle East. “By lifting Iran’s sanctions, Washington may push Tehran further away from China in the process,” Baheli told The Media Line.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
By lifting Iran’s sanctions, Washington may push Tehran further away from China in the process.
That strategy would fit into President Trump’s tendency to prioritize economic pragmatism over long-term political stability. But since China is Iran’s major oil consumer, a diplomatic break between the two countries is unlikely, Litvak said.
On Friday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected the idea of reentering into negotiations with the US. “Negotiating with such a government should not be done; it is neither wise, intelligent, nor honorable,” Khamenei said.
Litvak described Khamenei’s recent statement as “a major disappointment.” “Until a week ago, there were signs that Khamenei was willing to make negotiations with the US,” he said.
The supreme leader’s refusal to negotiate is a sign of his deep-seated distrust of American diplomacy, fueled by President Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. According to Baheli, his refusal is not representative of the will of the entire Iranian regime. “We also see how more and more representatives, both politicians and military figures, seem to be asking the supreme leadership to review the Iranian nuclear doctrine,” he said.
Alongside talk of the US reentering into negotiations with Iran, President Trump has also suggested that Israel or the US might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Baheli noted that the strategic positioning of Iran’s nuclear sites would make doing so difficult. “There are many structures scattered on the territory, and above all, they are screened from the mountains, from the rocks,” he said.
Iran adopted its policy of nuclear site decentralization following Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor.
Many Israelis prefer a military response to Iran over a diplomatic solution, but Litvak is an advocate for renewed negotiations. “I am one of those Israelis who believe that a deal is better for Israel,” he said. “The JCPOA was a bad deal, but it was better than the alternative. We are in a worse situation today than we were in 2015.”
The JCPOA was a bad deal, but it was better than the alternative. We are in a worse situation today than we were in 2015.
On Friday, President Trump told the New York Post that he would rather make a deal with Iran than end up “bombing the hell out of it.” “If we made the deal, Israel wouldn’t bomb them,” he said.
For Litvak, the ambiguity of that statement is concerning. “There is a problem in the statement in which he said that if he will reach a deal, Israel will not have to bomb Iran. That can mean either a veiled threat against Iran or that he is willing to give Israel a green light in case there is no deal,” he said.
As President Trump continues to push for a new Iran deal, the reality remains that the Islamic Republic is unlikely to embrace major concessions without ironclad guarantees. “As long as Khamenei is alive, he would not allow any serious rapprochement with the US,” Litvak said.
Facing an obstinate Khamenei and an Islamic Republic rapidly approaching nuclear armament, the president’s skills as dealmaker-in-chief are being put to the test, with international security hanging in the balance.