Once Donald Trump returns to power, one of the most pressing questions in international relations is how his administration will approach Iran. During his first term, Trump’s policies on Tehran were defined by his “maximum pressure” campaign. This is a strategy driven by the Iranian Hawks, like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton. His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 led to escalating tensions, economic sanctions and near-military conflict. Now, when he takes office for the second time, questions arise. Will Trump continue to follow the same path or is there a possibility of a new approach?
Riccardo Arcaro, director of research at the Institute of International Affairs (IAI), a Rome-based think tank, said that while Trump remains surrounded by hardlines, he is now in control of his administration. , claims that they look really interested in hitting the deal with Iran. Unlike his first term, when his advisors decided much of his foreign policy, Trump may now have the ability to negotiate an agreement that Congress and even Republicans can support him. A result that was never achieved at the JCPOA.
This interview explores the potential direction of Trump’s Iran policy, the role of Europe in shaping negotiations, and the broader implications for regional stability.
Trump’s second season and Iran. Potential policy shifts or continuation of the same approach
As the world carefully looks at the political landscape of the United States, one of the most pressing issues in today’s international relations is how Donald Trump’s return to power shapes global diplomacy. Analysts are particularly focused on their approach to Iran. Iran has been the center of US foreign policy debate for many years. Many assume that Trump will continue his previous policies, but if you look closely, you’ll see subtle but significant changes.
During his first term, Trump pursued a “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, and was heavily influenced by people like Secretary Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton. The strategy included strict economic sanctions and a clear stance on the Iranian government. However, despite the hardline approach, Trump showed his willingness to negotiate, but on the condition that Iran felt unacceptable.
Now, in his second season, things have evolved. His administration is controlled by Iran Hawks, including national security advisers Michael Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but Trump appears to have more control over his policies. His recent re-implementation of maximum pressure tactics suggests continuity, but his rhetoric shows potential openness to negotiations. Unlike his first term, Trump is his top priority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and discusses other controversial issues, such as Iran’s regional impacts and ballistic missile programmes. He emphasized that it would leave room for the
Some experts have argued, paradoxically, that Iran is more likely to secure a long-term contract with Trump than other US administrations. While negotiations are extremely challenging, an agreement supported by Trump and Congressional Republicans could provide more stability than past diplomatic efforts.
A broader US diplomatic strategy
The issue of negotiations with Iran must also be seen in the context of Washington’s broader foreign policy. While each administration brings priorities, there is an inclusive US strategy that transcends party boundaries. Historically, both Republican and Democrat administrations have tried to prevent Iran from expanding its nuclear program through a variety of means. Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) in 2018 was driven primarily by his desire to dismantle Obama-era policies and his traditional hard-line stance of his advisors towards Iran. . But as his second term unfolds, he may be more focused on securing his legacy through diplomatic breakthroughs. Still, the unpredictability of Trump’s commitment to sustainable negotiations raises concerns about the viability of a new agreement.
The role of Europe in future negotiations
From a European perspective, Iran’s skepticism about the United States is understandable and challenging. European countries, particularly E3 (Germany, France and the UK), are struggling to maintain the JCPOA in the face of US out-of-regional sanctions. They expressed unwillingness to reinvigorate the JCPOA in 2022, and are worried about the detention of Iran’s European citizens and military ties with Russia, particularly the supply of drones used in the Ukrainian conflict. I feel that way. Europe is likely to support a new contract with Trump, but if negotiations fail, they will also be prepared to increase pressure on Iran. If Tehran does not agree to international nuclear surveillance, the possibility of activating snapback mechanisms – removing UN sanctions against Iran – appears on the table.
Potential consequences of Iran’s attitude
Iranian leaders have long seen negotiations with Washington as useless, citing past US breached agreements. This deep mistrust, coupled with the history of US inconsistent policy, complicates potential diplomatic engagement. From a European perspective, Iran’s refusal to negotiate could lead to increased economic pressure and increased regional tensions. The risk of military conflicts, particularly from Israel or the United States-Israel coalition, also increases. However, even if Iran chooses to negotiate, success is not guaranteed. The potential deal calls for Iran to make bold and aggressive proposals, navigating a political landscape filled with spoilers from multiple aspects.
Intersections for Iran
Ultimately, Iran finds itself at a critical time. There are good reasons to distrust our intentions, but we also face the possibility of ensuring a more sustainable agreement under Trump’s leadership. Such a transaction, if approved by Congress, could open the door to new economic engagement despite the persistence of underlying tensions between the two countries.
No matter what path Iran chose, interests did not rise. A hard-line resistance strategy can lead to more instability and economic hardship, but negotiations are uncertain, but may offer unusual opportunities for a more stable future. The coming months will be important in determining whether Iran and the US can find a common foundation, or whether their hostile relationships will continue to escalate.
MNA