Diplomacy on the Clock: Trump’s Race for a Deal with Iran

In a surprising twist, U.S. President Donald Trump is now engaging in direct talks with Iran. This is the same Trump who scrapped the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, calling it the “worst deal ever.” Now, just a few years later, he is trying to make a new one—on his own terms. And, he might actually succeed.

Iran today is much weaker than it was when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed in 2015. Its economy is now collapsing under the weight of sanctions and mismanagement. The Iranian currency has plummeted. Inflation is soaring. Daily life for ordinary Iranians is difficult, and the effects of anti-regime protests continue to shake the country.

But perhaps even more significant than economic weakness is the blow Iran has suffered geopolitically. The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria—Tehran’s most important ally—has been a major strategic loss. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally in Lebanon, has been severely weakened after Israeli airstrikes eliminated several of its top commanders. Iran’s missile attacks on Israel in the aftermath of October 7 failed to change the balance. One by one, Iran’s tools of influence in the region are breaking down.

Trump sees this moment as an opportunity. After failing to produce a major foreign policy success in Ukraine, Iran may offer him a more realistic win. He’s eager to act fast. His image as a “deal-maker” is central to his political brand, and time-consuming negotiations aren’t his style. He wants a handshake, a photo op, and a headline.

Of course, Trump hasn’t stopped using threats either. He’s made clear that if diplomacy fails, military action is on the table. The U.S. has increased its military presence in the Gulf, and Trump has openly said he would strike Iran’s nuclear sites if necessary. But let’s be honest: a military strike is not a silver bullet.

Iran has enriched significant amounts of uranium since 2018, and it is possible that some of it is hidden in secret facilities. Even with strong U.S. and Israeli intelligence, a strike might miss key targets. That could leave Iran with just enough resources to build a bomb.

Even if a strike destroys all known facilities, Iran has many experienced nuclear scientists who can rebuild the program quicker. Military action would also trigger serious consequences for regional allies. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar publicly oppose military escalation, knowing they would be among the first targets in any Iranian retaliation. Oil infrastructure in the Gulf could be attacked, disrupting global trade and raising energy prices worldwide.

Given these risks, diplomacy seems like the better option. Trump’s red line is clear: Iran must not build a nuclear weapon. But the details of the new deal matter. Is Trump willing to let Iran enrich uranium at low levels for civilian use, as long as it cannot weaponize it? If so, that would be very similar to Obama’s deal—something Trump has repeatedly criticized. His adviser, Steve Witkoff, has suggested the idea of capping enrichment, which might appeal to both sides. But it’s a delicate balance.

If Trump demands a total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program—no enrichment, no facilities, no scientists—Iran will likely walk away. And then we are back to square one: more tension, more threats, and possibly war.

There’s also a broader political question. A deal could give the Iranian regime some breathing room. It could help them stabilize their domestic problems and rebuild their regional influence. That’s not necessarily what Trump’s allies—or Israel—want. But from Trump’s perspective, securing a deal now might be worth the political risk, especially if it comes with international praise and headlines about "peace through strength."

In short, Trump wants to give diplomacy a chance. But he also wants results fast. He is not interested in long, drawn-out negotiations. This urgency is both a strength and a weakness. If it works, it could lead to a quick agreement and a major foreign policy win. If it fails, the alternative may be dangerous escalation.

We now find ourselves at a crossroads. Trump could either de-escalate one of the world’s most volatile standoffs—or set it on fire.