President Donald Trump wants a deal with Iran and is uniquely positioned to obtain one. He has proven his ability to change stances while maintaining domestic support and, on various Middle East issues, appears to have given negotiators a long leash, empowering them to push for agreements that seemingly deviate from Trump’s own rhetoric.

He will need to show such flexibility again if he wants to finalize a deal with Iran. Trump wrote on social media that the United States would not allow Iran to enrich uranium, contradicting the proposal reportedly put forward by his lead negotiator, Steve Witkoff. If the United States maintains maximalist demands for zero enrichment, talks are doomed to fail, making both an Iranian bomb and a U.S.-Iran war more likely. An acceptable deal is within reach, however, but only if Washington adopts a pragmatic approach focused on constraining Iranian enrichment and abandons the unrealistic goal of eliminating it entirely.

The Enrichment Standoff

While negotiations gained some momentum early on, the two sides’ red lines on enrichment have emerged as a major sticking point. Witkoff initially suggested Washington might tolerate low-level enrichment, but both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio now publicly insist that Washington will not accept any enrichment and that Tehran’s nuclear facilities must be fully dismantled.

However, Axios reported that the recent U.S. proposal to Iran would allow “limited low-level uranium enrichment on Iranian soil” and would establish a regional nuclear consortium. This would be a significant shift that could help break the impasse. Shortly after, however, Trump wrote on Truth Social that any agreement “WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!" Subsequent reports suggest that Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium at low levels in the “opening years of the proposed arrangement” but would be required to end domestic enrichment once the consortium began operations. Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have said Tehran will reject the proposal precisely because of these zero-enrichment demands. 

Many in Washington will accept nothing less than Iranian capitulation to maximalist U.S. demands. In May, more than 200 Republican lawmakers signed a letter insisting on the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the reported proposal allowing low-level enrichment a “side deal that lets Iran get away with everything.”

Demands for zero enrichment and dismantlement are a poison pill for any deal. Iran has steadfastly rejected such terms for decades, and understandably so; its right to domestic enrichment is enshrined in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently reaffirmed this stance, saying a deal “ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons ... is within reach,” but that Iranian enrichment “will continue with or without a deal.” This position represents a broad consensus in Iran, uniting reformists and hardliners alike.

It is essential that unreasonable, maximalist demands are not allowed to collapse negotiations. Without an agreement, the United States and Iran could quickly find themselves on a path to war. The Iranian nuclear program is more advanced than ever, with Tehran nearly doubling its stockpile of near weapons-grade, 60-percent-enriched uranium since February. Meanwhile, the October deadline for European parties to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to “snap back” sanctions lifted under the deal is fast approaching, and they are likely to do so if no deal is reached by then. If that happens, Iranian officials have vowed to leave the NPT, which would significantly weaken monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, close the door to diplomacy, and raise the risk of preventive action. Failure to reach a deal would hand ammunition to those in the administration, Congress, and Israel pushing for strikes. Indeed, Trump has warned that Tehran must "move quickly,” or “something bad’s going to happen.” 

A Path Forward

Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that if Tehran rejects complete denuclearization, the only alternative is military action. Trump himself has said that Washington has two choices for handling Iran’s nuclear sites: “blow them up nicely or blow them up viciously.” However, military force cannot permanently dismantle Iran's nuclear program and would likely motivate Tehran to finally go for the bomb. Moreover, an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would almost certainly trigger a broader war that would be massively expensive in both American lives and dollars.

Washington does not need to choose between unrealistic demands and a costly war. A third path—a more limited but still sufficient agreement—is still on the table. Iran, weakened by sanctions and setbacks in the region, is eager for an agreement—as long as Washington abandons the zero-enrichment poison pill. 

An endorsement by Trump, the dominant force in his party, would be enough to move forward a reasonable deal. While Iran hawks would condemn any agreement with Tehran, the public would likely reward him. Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose military action against Iran and support a diplomatic agreement, even if it allows limited enrichment.

The president has already demonstrated a willingness to pivot from maximalist positions in the Middle East and elsewhere, and has not been punished by voters. Trump ended strikes against the Houthis, quickly reversing policy with little domestic pushback. Trump also surprised many by ending sanctions against Syria, embracing Syria’s new leader, and almost overnight resetting relations with the country. 

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

Email Address:

Furthermore, Trump has positioned Witkoff in a way that makes a deal far more achievable. Rather than engaging in major multilateral talks in search of a comprehensive deal like the JCPOA, Trump has given Witkoff the leeway to act as his emissary to understand the Iranian position and obtain an agreement, which could then be the foundation for future deals that could include additional parties. This approach has upset the Europeans, but it is the best method for securing a quick deal that avoids conflict between the U.S. and Iran. 

The contours of a workable agreement are clear. Crucially, a deal need not forbid Iranian enrichment for it to successfully prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. What matters is robust monitoring, the disposal of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, and strict limits on enrichment levels—conditions Iranian officials have repeatedly stated they would accept. Tehran has also signaled openness to a U.S.-proposed regional enrichment consortium, so long as enrichment takes place on Iranian soil. This is not the maximalist “Libyan model,” but it is enough to significantly extend Iran’s breakout time, contain the most dangerous aspects of its program, and defuse the crisis. 

Maximalist demands threaten to scuttle negotiations and put the United States and Iran on a path toward war. But if Trump chooses pragmatism, he has a real opportunity to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Such an agreement could be a first, crucial step toward the regional grand bargain that Trump desires. At the very least, the United States would have one less crisis to worry about.