What is truly unfolding between Trump and Tehran?

On the previous Saturday, the second round of nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran occurred in Rome, following an initial meeting a week earlier in Muscat, Oman. Both parties characterized the discussions as ‘constructive,’ yet this optimism was soon challenged by mixed signals from the Trump administration.

Despite the positive tone, it was uncertain if a new nuclear agreement was genuinely attainable. At the beginning of the talks, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – known for his hardline stance on Iran – established a stringent requirement: Iran must fully dismantle its uranium enrichment program to secure any deal with the US.

However, after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who led the US delegation, conveyed a contrasting perspective. In a Fox News interview, he indicated that Tehran might be permitted to retain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy purposes – a notion that would have been unacceptable just days prior. Witkoff underscored the necessity of rigorous verification measures to avert any militarization of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including monitoring missile technology and delivery systems.

Notably, he did not mention ‘dismantlement.’ This change suggested that the administration could be contemplating a revised approach to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the very agreement that Trump abandoned in 2018, labeling it a ‘disaster.’

However, the shift in stance was short-lived. Just a day later, Witkoff took to X to reaffirm the call for the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs.

What caused this sudden change in rhetoric? Axios reports that Trump convened with key national security advisors three days post the Muscat discussions to reevaluate the US approach. During this meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth advocated for a more pragmatic strategy. They cautioned that demanding the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities could jeopardize the negotiations, as Iran had already indicated that such extensive concessions were not negotiable. Vance even proposed that the US should prepare for some degree of compromise.

However, not all were in agreement. A competing faction, led by Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, held a different perspective. They contended that Iran’s current weaknesses presented the US with a rare advantage that should not be wasted. They maintained that if Tehran did not comply with US demands, the US should be prepared to take military action or support Israeli operations.

The divide reveals a significant strategic divide within the Trump administration. There exists a stark contrast between the hardline stance advocating for Iran’s total disarmament and a more adaptable approach focused on limiting weaponization while allowing for peaceful enrichment.

This creates a substantial gray area. The absence of a cohesive message – or even a fundamental agreement – could put the US at a disadvantage against a well-prepared and unified Iranian negotiating team. In essence, Trump is navigating a challenging balancing act. He clearly aims to prevent military escalation. The decision to appoint Witkoff, known for his willingness to negotiate, indicates a sincere commitment to diplomacy rather than aggressive posturing.

If hardliners had dominated in Washington, the second round of talks in Rome likely would not have occurred. On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously informed reporters that the discussions were progressing “very well,” but cautioned that meaningful advancements would require time. His choice of language demonstrated a desire to remain adaptable while recognizing the intricacies – and potential dangers – of engaging in negotiations with Tehran.

There appears to be a heightened sense of optimism from the Iranian perspective. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated that the two parties discovered considerably more shared interests in Rome compared to Muscat. His comments imply that progress is gaining traction and that significant advancements may be forthcoming.

Additionally, Araghchi’s travel plans drew attention; prior to his visit to Rome, he stopped in Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He reportedly delivered a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which he referred to as ‘a message to the world.’ This visit was not overlooked by the West, as it was widely seen as a public reaffirmation of the alliance between Moscow and Tehran.

Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor remarked on X that any substantial American military action against Iran would likely provoke a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic ally.

On the same day, President Putin ratified a law establishing a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran, further solidifying their political and economic collaboration. In light of the delicate US-Iran negotiations, the Moscow-Tehran relationship appears increasingly significant. As these connections strengthen, Washington may encounter greater challenges in applying unilateral pressure on Iran.

In Tehran, not all officials are convinced about the negotiations. Many remain doubtful of Trump, particularly due to his 2018 decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, which still casts a long shadow. Their skepticism extends beyond Trump to a broader worry: that future US leaders might also change course. If Trump dismantled Obama’s agreements, what guarantees exist that his own deals won’t face the same fate?

Despite these concerns, major international media have reported that two additional rounds of discussions are scheduled: one in Geneva next week and another in Oman the following week. This ongoing diplomatic engagement indicates a mutual interest in maintaining dialogue.

Currently, both Trump’s cautious optimism and Iran’s reserved stance imply that, at least for now, the threat of conflict has diminished. This reduction in hostile rhetoric reveals a significant reality: despite ongoing distrust and internal political challenges, both parties recognize the importance of continued negotiations.

This is evident even to those outside the policy sphere. Conversely, in Israel, the atmosphere is much more tense. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has consistently expressed his doubts about engaging with Iran, has criticized the talks.

For Tel Aviv, these negotiations could weaken Tehran’s isolation and jeopardize Israel’s strategic standing. Nevertheless, Trump’s focus is not on regional dynamics but rather on his legacy. He aims to be remembered as the president who averted war and achieved a deal that resonates with the American populace. In this context, Netanyahu’s concerns may need to be set aside.