Who’s next? President Trump has stunningly upended US relations with France, Germany, Ukraine, Russia, Panama, Canada, Mexico, and Denmark. Lately he has suggested that Iran might soon join the list.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal,” Trump mused a few days ago. “I would prefer to make a deal, because I am not looking to hurt Iran.”
Hurting Iran has been a key goal of American foreign policy for nearly half a century. By blithely suggesting that those days are over, Trump again showed his utter disregard for the established Washington consensus. If he wants to pull another rabbit out of his geopolitical hat, Iran might be the place. He seems ready.
“I would rather negotiate a deal,” he told a Fox News interviewer. “I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily…. The time is coming up. Something is going to happen one way or the other.” Then, almost offhandedly, he announced that he had written a letter to Iranian leaders “saying ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate,’ because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.”
That was only the latest in a series of gestures Trump has made to Iran over the last few weeks. When delegates to the United Nations Human Rights Council spoke at the opening of its 2025 session, the American delegate did not mention Iran — a startling omission, since in past years the United States has used these sessions to denounce Iran in withering terms. A few days later, as Trump signed an order imposing new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, he seemed almost wistful. “I’m going to sign it, but hopefully we’re not going to have to use it very much,” he said. “We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran.”
Soon after, Trump sent another tantalizing message. “Reports that the United States, working in conjunction with Israel, is going to blow Iran into smithereens, ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED,” he wrote on Truth Social. “I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed.”
That is quite a reversal from years of American “maximum pressure” on Iran. During Trump’s first term as president, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sent Iran a list of 12 exorbitant demands. He insisted that it give up all nuclear enrichment, stop building ballistic missiles, cut off support for militant groups in the Middle East, and “end its threatening behavior against its neighbors.” Today all those conditions are gone. Only one remains. Trump has put it succinctly: “They just can’t have a nuclear bomb.”
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly denounced nuclear weapons and forbidden his government to develop them. Whether we can take Khamenei’s word on this is another matter. If we can, that would seem to put him and Trump on common ground.
Just as Americans might doubt Khamenei, however, Iran’s leader doubts American sincerity. In 2015 he reluctantly allowed Iran to enter into a nuclear accord with Western countries, but Trump ripped it up after coming to the presidency two years later. That hardly gives Khamenei confidence in the durability of another agreement.
“Some bully governments insist on negotiations,” the octogenarian cleric said after Trump announced he had sent a conciliatory letter to Tehran, which, as of this writing, Iran’s leadership has denied receiving. “Their negotiations are not aimed at solving problems. They aim at domination.”
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also expressed doubts without rejecting the idea of negotiation. “If America wants to return to a new nuclear agreement with Iran, naturally it should observe the conditions of a fair and just negotiation,” he said. “We have proven that we will not answer the language of pressure and threat, but will respond to the language of respect and dignity, as we did in the past.”
Although both countries seem at least superficially interested in talks to end their long enmity, major obstacles loom in both Washington and Tehran. Some of Trump’s advisers favor confrontation rather than conciliation. Elise Stefanik, his ambassador to the United Nations, asserted during her Senate confirmation hearing in January that Iran directs an “axis of terror” in the Middle East and said she would be “supporting the president’s maximum pressure campaign.” His national security adviser, former congressman Michael Waltz, has suggested that bombing Iran “might be Israel’s last best chance” and last month warned Iranian leaders that “all options are on the table.”
Trump could probably impose a deal on doubters within his government. Neither Iran’s Supreme Leader nor President Masoud Pezeshkian could.
Iranian politics is a snake pit of rivalries. A strong faction opposes all talks with the United States. Hardliners recently showed their power by deposing the economy minister and the “vice president for strategic affairs,” both moderates who supported negotiation. Others on that side risk political death.
The prospect of a breakthrough in US-Iran relations comes amid intense upheaval in the Middle East. Whether a deal would calm Iran’s fears and make it a productive partner or simply liberate it to intensify its meddling is a question being hotly debated in Washington. And in case anyone had forgotten about Iran’s role in global politics, it has just begun a joint naval maneuver with Russia and China.
Overcoming two generations of hostility between Iran and the United States will not be easy. An outside power may be called to mediate. Russia is offering its services.
Trump has taken wildly unconventional approaches to some world problems. Making a deal with Iran and using Russia as the mediator would horrify some, thrill others, and astonish all.
