Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on Monday, marking a historic return to the White House. His presidency begins amid significant domestic and international challenges, but one issue stands out as particularly pressing: Iran’s nuclear program.

Over the past few years, Iran has significantly advanced its nuclear capabilities and is now considered to be at the threshold of developing nuclear weapons. This precarious situation demands immediate attention, as it not only poses a direct threat to the region but also challenges global nonproliferation efforts.

How Trump chooses to approach this critical issue will define a major part of his foreign policy agenda. Will he revive his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, or will he attempt to negotiate a deal on his own terms? While much remains uncertain, Trump’s past actions and the current geopolitical landscape offer insights into the likely trajectory of his administration’s Iran policy.

Trump’s opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal – has been a cornerstone of his approach to Iran. Signed in 2015 under the Obama administration, the JCPOA aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, Trump viewed the agreement as fundamentally flawed. In 2018, he unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, calling it “the worst deal ever negotiated” and criticizing its temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, which he argued would allow Tehran to resume its activities in the future.

The JCPOA also failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for proxy groups across the Middle East, two issues that Trump emphasized as critical threats. He repeatedly stated that any agreement with Iran should be broader in scope and include guarantees against these destabilizing behaviors. Despite expressing a willingness to negotiate a “better deal,” no such agreement was reached during his first term. Instead, his administration pursued a “maximum pressure” policy, which sought to cripple Iran’s economy through severe sanctions while isolating it diplomatically.

Although Trump occasionally expressed interest in negotiating a deal with Iran, there are strong indications that this is unlikely during his second term. The current geopolitical landscape, combined with Trump’s longstanding preferences and the evolving dynamics in the Middle East, suggests a renewed pressure campaign.
Three key factors make a new deal improbable: Iran’s diminished leverage, escalating US-Israel-Iran tensions, and Trump’s commitment to the “maximum pressure” doctrine. Each of these factors underscores the challenges and complexities of negotiating with Tehran.

Iran’s position in the region has weakened considerably over the last year, undermining its ability to negotiate from a position of strength. One of the most significant blows to Iran’s influence has been the loss of Syria as a strategic ally. The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which relied heavily on Iranian support, represents a major setback for Tehran’s regional ambitions. Without Syria as a reliable partner, Iran’s ability to project power across the Middle East has been significantly curtailed. Additionally, Iran’s proxy network, which has long been a cornerstone of its regional strategy, has suffered substantial setbacks. Hezbollah, Iran’s most prominent proxy, has been weakened by sustained Israeli military campaigns that have targeted its infrastructure, supply lines, and leadership.

These developments leave Iran in a far weaker position than it was during the 2015 negotiations, when it successfully secured significant concessions from the P5+1 countries. With diminished influence and fewer allies, Tehran’s ability to negotiate favorable terms with the US has been severely compromised.

Tensions between Iran and Israel, a close US ally, have reached unprecedented levels in recent years. Both nations have engaged in direct military actions against each other, with strikes targeting critical infrastructure and assets. For instance, in 2024, Israel carried out a series of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and weapons depots, prompting retaliatory attacks from Iran on Israeli territory.

These developments mark a dangerous escalation in their long-standing rivalry and raise the stakes for any US involvement in the region. Trump’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further complicates the prospects for a US-Iran deal. Netanyahu has been one of the most vocal critics of the JCPOA and has consistently opposed any negotiations with Iran. During Trump’s first term, Netanyahu and Trump enjoyed a close partnership, and their alignment on Iran policy was evident in the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the implementation of the maximum pressure campaign.

Given these dynamics, it is unlikely that Israel would support, let alone tolerate, any renewed negotiations between the United States and Iran. Trump’s alignment with Netanyahu and his broader commitment to Israel’s security make it improbable that he would pursue a course of action that contradicts Israeli interests.
Trump’s campaign rhetoric has provided clear indications of his approach to Iran. He has vowed to reinstate the “maximum pressure” policy, which involves the comprehensive application of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the threat of military action. This strategy, which defined his first term, aimed to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, curb its ballistic missile program, and cease its support for proxy groups.

In conclusion, as Trump prepares for his second term in office, the Iran nuclear program represents a significant and immediate challenge for his administration. Iran’s weakened geopolitical position, escalating tensions with Israel, and Trump’s renewed commitment to maximum pressure policy all strongly suggest the prospects for negotiations, or a diplomatic resolution remain exceedingly low.