SAEDNEWS: The Etemad newspaper, citing Responsible Statecraft, reported that regarding Iran, discussions likely revolve around a limited agreement, similar to the framework signed between Trump’s first administration and North Korea.
According to SaedNews, with Donald Trump remaining silent on his potential second-term approach to Iran, speculations are mounting about his interest in a diplomatic solution to ease tensions with Tehran. During a program on Fox News, Trump claimed that the only thing his second administration would emphasize is ensuring that “Iran cannot cross the nuclear breakout threshold.”
The Etemad report highlights that Trump made no mention of Iran’s regional policies or alleged conflicts with Tel Aviv, suggesting he might not favor a military option against Iran. In light of this, Responsible Statecraft published an analysis assessing Trump’s potential Iran policy. The publication argues that since Iranian officials have repeatedly stated they do not seek to revise their nuclear doctrine, a deal between Washington and Tehran appears more plausible. Meanwhile, Iran’s newly elected President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has consistently expressed readiness for diplomatic engagement with Washington.
However, the New York Times noted that despite the apparent political will from both sides, reaching an agreement will not be straightforward. The context for future negotiations is vastly different from 2015 when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed between Iran and global powers. Since Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Biden has failed to restore it, while Iran has steadily advanced its nuclear program—enriching uranium up to 60%, which allows for rapid enrichment to weapons-grade 90%. Meanwhile, restricted access for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors has further complicated Tehran’s relations with the West. Although Iran officially insists there is no change in its nuclear doctrine, some analysts argue that regional developments—such as the prolonged conflicts between Tel Aviv and Hezbollah/Hamas, and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria—may push Iran toward reconsidering its nuclear deterrence policy.
At the same time, another group of analysts suggests a different view within Iran’s current government regarding negotiations with Washington. They argue that since the U.S. was the first to exit the JCPOA, it should take the first step to restore trust. This group also claims that easing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for U.S. sanctions relief would weaken Tehran’s leverage in future negotiations. According to The New York Times, some Iranian policymakers believe Trump may seek a quick agreement to bolster his reputation as a peacemaker, especially given the unlikely resolution of the Ukraine war in the near future. In this scenario, Iran could be seen as a more accessible diplomatic option.
The Responsible Statecraft report suggests that discussions with Iran might focus on a limited agreement, similar to the one Trump signed with North Korea. However, even those considering such a path raise concerns about its enforceability. Despite this, some analysts argue that even a symbolic agreement—such as a handshake between Trump and Pezeshkian—could significantly reduce tensions. Furthermore, such an agreement could neutralize the influence of pro-Netanyahu lobbyists and create political space for broader negotiations, potentially leading to a sustainable agreement addressing Iran’s nuclear program while lifting sanctions.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post published a parallel analysis, arguing that while U.S.-Iran diplomacy remains in an exploratory phase, tensions between Tehran and the European Union—particularly the UK, France, and Germany—are high. Observers believe there is little hope that the European trio can revive the nuclear deal without U.S. involvement. To prevent renewed UN Security Council sanctions against Iran before October 2025, new diplomatic efforts in Geneva are underway. Some analysts also interpret these talks as a signal to Washington that Tehran is now serious about reaching an agreement.
Currently, the U.S. has a strong incentive to engage in meaningful multilateral negotiations, as a solely bilateral approach with Iran risks alienating the European trio, potentially leading them to obstruct a Washington-Tehran deal. Given the uncertainty surrounding U.S.-EU relations in Trump’s potential second term, a limited bilateral agreement between Washington and Tehran—one that reduces tensions and sets the stage for deeper negotiations within the JCPOA framework—might be the most realistic path forward.
