The revival of the Iranian nuclear deal serves the strategic interests of both Iran and the United States. Iran seeks relief from crippling economic sanctions that have devastated its economy, while the U.S. remains concerned about nuclear proliferation. The feasibility of such a deal under President Donald Trump’s administration, which took office in January 2025, hinges on geopolitical and economic considerations. Unlike career politicians, Trump approaches foreign policy with a business-oriented mindset, favoring negotiations that provide mutual benefits. However, his imposition of the “maximum pressure” policy on Iran has escalated tensions, making diplomatic progress difficult. A major obstacle to a renewed agreement is Israel’s influence over U.S. foreign policy. Any nuclear deal with Iran cannot be materialized without addressing Israeli security concerns, as Tel Aviv views Tehran as an existential threat. Israeli influence played a pivotal role in Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), citing concerns over Iran’s ballistic missile program and the deal’s sunset clauses. Trump administration fears that after the agreement’s expiration in 2040, Iran could amass financial resources and resume its nuclear ambitions. These concerns align closely with Israeli anxieties rather than purely American strategic calculations. In reality, while Israel publicly opposes a renewed agreement, a controlled and verifiable nuclear deal could ultimately serve its security interests by preventing Iran from advancing its nuclear program unchecked.
Despite these challenges, the urgency of diplomatic engagement is underscored by Iran’s continued uranium enrichment. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has enriched uranium stockpiles by up to 60%, bringing it closer to weapons-grade levels. “I think we are running out of time, but that does not mean we cannot move swiftly,” said IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi at the Munich Security Conference. Without a deal, the risk of a regional nuclear arms race looms large, potentially involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. A nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally alter the security landscape of the Middle East, prompting neighboring countries to pursue their own nuclear capabilities and further destabilizing an already volatile region.
Although Trump has signaled a willingness to negotiate, stating, “I would much rather negotiate a deal that does not harm them,” his administration’s continued economic pressure has undermined diplomatic efforts. Tehran, under President Masoud Pezeshkian—a reformist leader seeking better relations with the West—views negotiations under duress as a strategic misstep, reinforcing perceptions that Iran is an adversary to be subdued rather than an equal negotiating partner. The Iranian leadership remains firm in its rejection of diplomacy conducted under Trump’s “maximum pressure” framework, which it sees as coercive rather than constructive. Iran’s history with U.S. sanctions has made it wary of any negotiations that do not come with credible assurances of economic relief.
Economic incentives could provide a pathway toward renewed negotiations. Trump’s transactional approach suggests that a new agreement might align with both American and Iranian interests. Reducing hostilities could alleviate long-term U.S. defense expenditures while creating economic opportunities for American companies in Iran’s resource-rich market. Simultaneously, a revived nuclear deal would curb nuclear proliferation risks and prevent a destabilizing arms race in the Middle East. For Iran, lifting sanctions would not only improve its economy but also help Pezeshkian’s administration gain credibility domestically, as economic hardship has fueled public discontent and weakened the government’s standing.
External actors, particularly Russia, could play a crucial role in breaking the deadlock. Moscow has advised Washington to limit negotiations strictly to nuclear issues, avoiding broader disputes over Iran’s missile program or regional influence. Senior Russian diplomat Mikhail Ulyanov recently confirmed that the U.S. and Russia have established a communication channel regarding the nuclear deal, with Russian President Vladimir Putin positioned as a potential mediator. Russia’s role is particularly significant given its close ties with Iran and its strategic interest in limiting U.S. influence in the region. By acting as an intermediary, Moscow could help facilitate a diplomatic breakthrough that addresses the core concerns of both Washington and Tehran.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia has emerged as a key player in the negotiations, given its regional rivalry with Iran. Riyadh has historically aligned with Washington on Iran-related issues but has also demonstrated interest in regional stability. As a mediator, Saudi Arabia could push for a compromise that balances U.S. security concerns with Iran’s economic demands. The Kingdom’s involvement in the process is crucial, as any deal that significantly alters Iran’s regional standing will have direct implications for Saudi security interests.
Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said that while Saudi foreign policy is anchored in a strategic partnership with the US, Riyadh’s foreign policy “has sought to diversify its options, both regionally and internationally, allowing for flexibility and pragmatism when circumstances dictate.” “Signaling willingness to mediate between President Trump and Iran allows the kingdom to tacitly distance itself from Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Tehran,” he told CNN.
The deadlock in U.S.-Iran relations also stems from Trump’s unpredictable policy shifts. His administration has alternated between threats of military action and statements expressing a desire for diplomacy, creating uncertainty in Tehran about his true intentions. Iran’s leadership is unlikely to engage in negotiations unless it perceives a clear commitment from Washington to respect any new agreement. The Trump administration’s past withdrawal from the JCPOA has heightened Iranian skepticism, making it imperative for any renewed deal to include stronger guarantees to prevent another unilateral U.S. withdrawal.
The stakes of failing to reach an agreement are high. If Iran continues to enrich uranium at its current pace, it could reach nuclear breakout capability within a short timeframe, intensifying the risk of military conflict. The U.S. and Israel have both hinted at the possibility of preemptive strikes to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a scenario that would likely trigger a wider regional war. Such an outcome would not only have devastating humanitarian consequences but also destabilize global energy markets, as Iran’s strategic location along the Strait of Hormuz makes it a key player in global oil supply chains.
Ultimately, the current deadlock results from a combination of Trump’s unpredictable policy shifts and Israel’s strong influence over U.S. decision-making. Within Iran, President Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist, appears more inclined toward engagement with the West than hardline factions within the Iranian establishment. However, without a renewed agreement, Iran’s nuclear advancements could trigger a regional arms race, prompting countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to pursue their own nuclear capabilities. Given the volatility of the Middle East, such a scenario would pose significant risks to global security.
A successful nuclear deal requires careful diplomacy, economic incentives, and strong verification mechanisms. If Trump’s administration can secure an agreement that extends restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program while providing Tehran with meaningful economic relief, it could create a foundation for long-term stability in the region. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether renewed diplomacy can overcome entrenched mistrust and geopolitical rivalries to achieve a sustainable resolution.
[Photo by Khamenei.ir, via Wikimedia Commons]
Syed Raza Abbas is a Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) Islamabad. The author’s research focuses on Strategic stability, arms control, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear technology, with particular focus on the Middle East.
Moneeb Jaffar Mir is a researcher at the Center for International Strategic Studies, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, specializing in the global nuclear order, geopolitics, extremism, and philosophy. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.
