President Donald Trump still wants a nuclear deal with Iran, and Iran still wants one with him.

That, at least, seems to be the case, even after a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran that ended Tuesday. The war opened with an Israeli surprise attack, built to a climax with American bombs pummeling Iranian nuclear sites, and reached its finale when Trump shouted to reporters that Tehran and Jerusalem “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing!”

The past two weeks hardly laid a stable foundation for a resumption of U.S.–Iran diplomacy. The two sides had been trying to reach an agreement that would give Iran sanctions relief in exchange for more restrictions on its nuclear program. Two weeks ago, when Israel launched its attack on Iran, many observers deemed negotiations to be dead.

Yet Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. and Iran will meet next week. The Islamic Republic is split over whether to resume negotiations, but as the New York Times reports, “The faction that appears to have the upper hand at the moment is pushing for moderation and diplomacy.”

As explained below, I’m starting to think Trump should give up on the goal of striking a new Iran nuclear deal. But Iran-watchers I reached out to told me that a deal remains achievable and negotiations worthwhile.

Jamal Abdi, President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said that Washington can still get a deal, since Tehran’s moderate president, Masoud Pezeshkian, still supports negotiations. “The problem,” Abdi said, “is the alternative is just ‘mowing the lawn’ and bombing Iran every time they rebuild” their nuclear program. Trump wants to avoid another forever war in the Middle East, and Pezeshkian doesn’t want the recent “12-day war” to become a biannual event, so both sides have an interest in reviving direct diplomacy.  

In the wake of U.S.-Israeli aggression, Tehran has another reason, beyond the fear of more bombing, to resume negotiations: Iranians blame Israel much more than the U.S. for the destructive war they just endured, and they appreciate that Trump played a role in ending it. Amirdaryoush Youhaei, a political science student who lives in Tehran, told me on Wednesday that, among his countrymen, “the anger is mostly toward Israel.” Youhaei noted that Trump, after announcing a ceasefire, pushed Israel to honor it. “Tehran really liked the way he treated Bibi yesterday,” Youhaei said, using the nickname of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who for decades has prodded the U.S. into attacking Iran.

Eldar Mamedov, a longtime professional diplomat, also thinks that Trump’s willingness to stiff-arm Netanyahu opens new possibilities for diplomacy with Iran. Trump, Mamedov pointed out, has “said no to Israelis more often than his predecessors.” In Mamedov’s view, Trump can and should rebuff Israel again and get a deal with Iran that puts its nuclear program in a box.

But would Tehran actually be willing, at this point, to restart talks? Ryan Costello, Policy Director at NIAC, conceded that “Iranian decisionmakers undoubtedly feel badly burned after being bombed while at the negotiating table.” Though negotiations will not be easy, Costello said the volatility of the present moment makes them necessary for both sides. “Diplomacy should be aimed at finding a modus vivendi with Iran, which could entail trading sanctions relief for bringing Iran’s nuclear program back under some degree of inspection.”

These Iran-watchers all made valid points, and they know a lot more than I do about such matters. Still, America needs to have a conversation about whether Trump’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran is worth the candle. 

I long supported an Iran nuclear deal and believed that Trump was well-positioned to strike one. But I now suspect that U.S.–Iran negotiations have caused more problems than they’ve solved. Trump’s tendency to make maximalist demands raises tensions with Iran, while any concessions he offers agitate Iran hawks and stimulate their clamoring for war. The whole process, I fear, puts the spotlight on Iran in a way that increases the odds of catastrophe.

While Abdi supports a resumption of nuclear talks, he also cautioned: If the White House continues to demand that Tehran cease enriching uranium on its own territory, an agreement likely isn’t achievable.

There’s the rub. Negotiations were progressing when the White House sought limits rather than a ban on enrichment. But fierce pushback from Israel and its American supporters prompted the administration to adopt the more hardline position, a nonstarter for Iran. Trump has not only settled on a demand that Tehran finds unacceptable but said the alternative to Tehran’s accepting it is war—a disconcerting combo.

Now that he’s bombed Iran, Trump could withdraw from negotiations and say that the stated alternative, military action, has set back Tehran’s program to his satisfaction. Alternatively, with the program degraded, the president could now accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium. But I haven’t seen any signs he’ll do that.

I’m also skeptical that Trump is willing and able to fend off Netanyahu, who would go to great lengths to prevent a détente between Tehran and Washington. Indeed, Wednesday evening brought evidence that Trump wholeheartedly supports the Israeli leader. Trump posted a long message on Truth Social enthusing over Netanyahu and calling for corruption charges against him to be dropped. “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump wrote.

Recurrent signs of a Trump–Netanyahu rift excite critics of Israel and endear them to the U.S. president, but the two leaders have long been close partners, a fact that must worry the Islamic Republic. Tehran also has newer reasons for doubting Trump’s intentions, which I laid out in my column earlier this week: 

As the Israel–Iran war escalated, Trump made a series of provocative moves that undoubtedly inflamed Tehran’s antipathy toward the U.S. The president threatened to kill Iran’s supreme leader; called on all residents of Tehran (more populous than New York City) to “immediately evacuate”; used the word “we” when describing Israeli military operations in Iran; and endorsed regime change in Iran.

In international politics, distrust is a perennial problem that often hampers diplomacy, but the suspicion with which Tehran must now regard Trump’s overtures greatly exceeds even the baseline wariness that states display. 

Terror, not trust, is driving Iran back to the negotiation table, and even if Washington and Tehran somehow struck a deal, it would lack credibility. Trump essentially held a gun to Iran’s head and then, when Iran didn’t acquiesce, shot it in the stomach. Tehran’s hardliners would slam any deal negotiated under these circumstances, and they’d have a point.

And if negotiations failed to produce a deal, hardliners in Iran who oppose diplomacy would again seem vindicated. For now, Iran’s moderates have the upper hand, but their position is precarious. If Trump pulls the Persian rug out from under them again, the hardliners might gain power and keep it for decades.

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Reaching a stable modus vivendi with Iran, as Costello recommends, doesn’t require a grand new deal that puts more restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program, beyond its existing obligations. Indeed, Trump will be lucky if, by the end of his term, Iran’s program doesn’t have fewer restrictions than before. After the 12-day war, Tehran is contemplating a departure from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog. 

Perhaps Trump, rather than trying to strike a new agreement, should urge Tehran to continue abiding by the NPT and cooperating with the IAEA—filing reports about its nuclear program and allowing inspections, among other measures. Accomplishing even that minimal objective could prove difficult, but if Trump succeeded, America would continue to have insight into Iran’s nuclear activities.

Next week, assuming the U.S. and Iran actually meet, we’ll learn more about the viability of constructive nuclear diplomacy. If Washington relaxes its “no enrichment” demand or if Tehran unexpectedly agrees to it—and if Trump determines a deal can be signed without too much delay—then he should go for it. Otherwise, the president, who has other important matters to attend to, should consider moving on.