Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column.
U.S. President Donald Trump, the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal,” hasn’t had much success in making deals so far.
Russia has rejected his overtures to end the war in Ukraine. Israel and Hamas defied his efforts to end the war in Gaza. And China appears to be in no mood to strike a deal to end the trade war he sparked.
When it comes to Iran, however, things may be looking up.
Negotiators from the U.S. and Iran met in Oman last Saturday, and again this weekend, for face-to-face talks about ending Iran’s nuclear program. And Trump, who walked away from the original 2015 nuclear deal during his first term, is now well-positioned to secure a lasting deal.
The question is: What kind?
Since the U.S. abandoned the agreement that curtailed Iran’s nuclear program in 2018, Tehran has accelerated its enrichment of uranium, which is a critical step toward building a nuclear weapon. Hence, the need for a quick resolution is more urgent than ever.
Currently, there are three aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities that are particularly worrying: First, after deploying advanced centrifuges able to enrich uranium at a much faster pace, the country has massively expanded its enrichment capabilities.
Second, as it’s been producing highly enriched uranium since 2021, Iran has now stockpiled about 275 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. That’s sufficient for about six nuclear weapons once enriched to 90 percent purity — meaning, it would take Iran less than two weeks to produce enough bomb-grade material for a single weapon.
Finally, late last year, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Iran was examining ways to build a crude weapons stockpile in a matter of months, rather than waiting the year or more it would take its engineers to manufacture a weapon that could be deployed atop a ballistic missile.
But how will the U.S. approach the issue?
Voices within the Trump administration are urging competing actions. One faction, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, believes a diplomatic approach will fail because Iran can’t be trusted and they favor a military campaign. A second faction, led by Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, believes using force is too risky and favor diplomatic resolution instead.
Trump, as is his m.o., has indicated support for both factions.
He’s repeatedly threatened the use of force, saying: “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing … It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” And to back up his threat, the U.S. has moved significant military capability to the region — including two carrier strike forces and at least six B2 bombers capable of dropping the GBU-57 “bunker buster,” which can penetrate 200 feet of concrete before detonating.
At the same time, Trump has also reached out to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to propose direct negotiations, indicating a desire to resolve the issue through diplomacy. He has sent his top peace envoy, Steve Witkoff, to lead the talks, and reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin, urging Moscow to help convince Tehran of the need for a deal.
Trump’s carrots and sticks have now led to the first direct U.S.-Iranian talks in a decade — that’s no mean feat. And crucially, Tehran appears to understand that the alternative to diplomacy would be direct military confrontation, at a time when it is perhaps weaker than it’s ever been since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
The axis of resistance that Iran painstakingly built over the past decades, arcing from Iran through to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, has been effectively dismantled over the past six months by Israeli strikes and Bashar Assad’s ouster from Damascus.
The country itself has been militarily weakened after its two massive missile and drone strikes against Israel failed to do much damage and Israel’s retaliation, which decimated Iran’s air defenses around the capital and its ballistic missile production facilities. It also under significant economic pressure, as decades-long sanctions have brought Tehran close to the economic abyss.
Thus, key Iranian leaders were reportedly able to convince Khamenei that failure to secure a deal would lead to war abroad, as well as an economic collapse at home that could threaten the regime.
So, the current onset of talks underscores that both leaders’ are interested in a deal.
And while many in the U.S. criticized the 2015 agreement for being time-limited, for allowing Iran to maintain enrichment facilities and for excluding limits on Iran’s ballistic missile forces and destabilizing regional activities, this time around Tehran has suggested it’s open to discussing regional issues, as well as strict, verifiable limits on its nuclear program. However, there are clear red lines — like any demands to dismantle its nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities.
This means it all depends on how far Trump wants to push. And on that matter, we’ve seen conflicting signs.
After the first round of talks ended, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said only enrichment beyond 3.67 percent would be banned — as in the 2015 agreement. But a day later, he indicated “a Trump deal” would have to include the elimination of all nuclear enrichment. Meanwhile, Trump himself said: “Iran has to get rid of the concept of a nuclear weapon.” But it’s unclear what he means by that.
Overall, given Iran’s weakened state and Trump’s eagerness for a deal, success is possible. However, the final deal — if there is one — is more likely to resemble the 2015 one he repeatedly described as “the worst deal in history,” rather than something more stringent, which many of the agreement’s, mainly Republican, critics desired.
But politics has changed since 2015. And Trump will likely be lauded for reaching such an agreement by the very people who criticized then-President Barack Obama for signing one.
Perhaps that’s the true art of the deal.
The post Trump may get a nuclear deal — on Iran’s terms appeared first on Politico.
