Iran is inching closer to nuclear capability, with enrichment infrastructure decentralized across fortified underground sites, and the stakes for international security have never been higher. President Trump aims to position himself as a master dealmaker, capable of extracting significant concessions from Iran, but experts remain skeptical as to whether his strategy can yield tangible results.
President Trump’s approach to Iran has oscillated between economic pressure and the promise of negotiation. Meir Litvak, director of the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, told The Media Line that the president sees himself as “the ultimate dealmaker” and remains convinced that he can secure a better agreement than the one negotiated under President Barack Obama.
In 2015, President Obama signed a deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under that plan, Iran agreed to put limits on its nuclear program and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its nuclear facilities. In return, it received relief from international sanctions.
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the agreement, which he called “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” Litvak explained that the president aimed to apply pressure on Iran to force the country to agree to a better deal. That attempt failed, he said, “and now we’re facing a situation where Iran is much closer to nuclear capability.”
The supreme leader’s refusal to negotiate is a sign of his deep-seated distrust of American diplomacy, fueled by President Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. According to Baheli, his refusal is not representative of the will of the entire Iranian regime. “We also see how more and more representatives, both politicians and military figures, seem to be asking the supreme leadership to review the Iranian nuclear doctrine,” he said.
Alongside talk of the U.S. reentering into negotiations with Iran, President Trump has also suggested that Israel or the U.S. might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Baheli noted that the strategic positioning of Iran’s nuclear sites would make doing so difficult. “There are many structures scattered on the territory, and above all, they are screened from the mountains, from the rocks,” he said.
Many Israelis prefer a military response to Iran over a diplomatic solution, but Litvak is an advocate for renewed negotiations. “I am one of those Israelis who believe that a deal is better for Israel,” he said. “The JCPOA was a bad deal, but it was better than the alternative. We are in a worse situation today than we were in 2015.”
For Litvak, the ambiguity of that statement is concerning. “There is a problem in the statement in which he said that if he will reach a deal, Israel will not have to bomb Iran. That can mean either a veiled threat against Iran or that he is willing to give Israel a green light in case there is no deal,” he said.
As President Trump continues to push for a new Iran deal, the reality remains that the Islamic Republic is unlikely to embrace major concessions without ironclad guarantees. “As long as Khamenei is alive, he would not allow any serious rapprochement with the U.S.,” Litvak said.
• None The story is written by Giorgia Valente and reprinted with permission from