Trump hints at nuclear deal with Iran

President Donald Trump says a nuclear deal with Iran is “close” and that Tehran has “sort of” agreed to curbing its suspected clandestine atomic weapons programme. Speaking to reporters on his Middle East diplomatic tour, the president gave a response to questions with his characteristic, casual choice of words that hint of a dramatic breakthrough without actually providing evidence of a deal which could potentially be his biggest foreign policy achievement to date. The US and Iran have now had four meetings of indirect negotiations in Oman, and although the content has remained confidential, the atmosphere between the two sides has been candid but amicable, raising expectations that a deal to end the threat of Tehran “breaking out” and building a nuclear bomb could be brokered diplomatically without the need for Trump to resort to military force. However, despite Trump’s enticing sound bite, there remain so many sticking points before a meaningful agreement can be signed that there have to be doubts about whether Iran is yet ready to bend to the US president’s demands. The biggest obstacle of all are the red lines which the US and Iran have set for themselves in the negotiations mediated by Oman. Initially, when the first round of talks began in Muscat last month the US position appeared to be that Iran would need to limit all enrichment of uranium to 3.67 per cent which would be the level appropriate for use in a civil nuclear programme. However, this position changed when Trump declared in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on 4 May that his goal was the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s uranium-enrichment programme. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy at the Muscat talks, underlined his boss’s demand by saying it was Washington’s “red line”. Abass Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister and the official chosen by the Tehran government to be the negotiator at the Oman talks, said the continuation of the enrichment programme was Iran’s red line. He accused the US of “inconsistency” and said it was unhelpful. Trump also wants any deal with Iran on its nuclear programme to embrace two other areas of concern to the US: the Iranian ballistic-missile programme and the support Tehran provides for proxy militia and terrorist groups in the Middle East, notably Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen and the Popular Mobilisation Force in Iraq. When Trump in his first administration withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015 during Barack Obama’s presidency, he cited the failure to include any clauses on Iran’s state funding of terrorism as one of the reasons. He also described the deal, agreed by Iran with the US, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, as a “horrible one-sided nuclear agreement” which wouldn’t stop Tehran from building a bomb eventually. This was partly because there was a finite period for limiting Iran’s enrichment programme of only 15 years. Iran has insisted that it has no intention to build a nuclear weapon. But the rapid development of its uranium-enrichment programme tells another story. The number of gas centrifuges required to “spin” the uranium at accelerating speeds to higher grades have proliferated at Iran’s key nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Enrichment has also progressed way beyond what is suitable for civil nuclear power and is approaching weapons-grade level – 90 per cent enrichment. In its latest report for 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has had the job of trying to keep track of Iran’s overt and covert nuclear programme, said nearly 275 kilograms of uranium had been enriched to 60 per cent. Another 606 kilograms had been enriched to 20 per cent. The Hiroshima bomb used about 64 kilograms of uranium. The IAEA is due to produce an updated report at the end of this month. Different estimates have been given about how long it might take Iran to build its first nuclear bomb after a decision is made to go ahead. But the timescales have come down rapidly. The estimates range from a few months to a year. However, that doesn’t take into account the time and expertise required to fit a nuclear warhead to a delivery system. The talks between the US and Iran have been constructive for a number of reasons: Attempts at moving the nuclear issue along failed to make any headway during the administration of President Joe Biden, although efforts were made to put new life into the JCPOA which, by the way, is still supported by the other 2015 signatories. The arrival of Donald Trump in the White House for a second term gave new impetus to the nuclear threat posed by Iran. Trump said he would prefer a diplomatic solution but made it clear the military option was one he would take if necessary. When six B-2 Spirit strategic bombers arrived at the British-owned US base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in March, joined a few weeks later by four B-52 bombers there was widespread speculation that the military option might be on the cards sooner than anticipated. The US military focus, however, was at that time on the Houthis in Yemen, but Tehran would have got a fright. The political and strategic dimension has also changed dramatically. Israeli military action against Hamas and Hezbollah, and US attacks on the Houthis dealt massive blows to Iran’s so-called “forward defence” aimed at deterring the US and Israel from launching an attack. Also, crucially, Israeli airstrikes on Iranian air defence systems in October in retaliation for Tehran’s direct strikes on Israel, have made Iran more vulnerable to any attempt by the US to bomb its nuclear facilities. Last month Iranian foreign minister Araghchi said Iran was ready to “seal a deal” provided the US withdrew its “military solution”. While it seems unlikely Trump would want to rule out an option that can only put pressure on Iran to sign a new nuclear deal, the optimistic comments coming out of the talks so far suggest that Tehran is now more desperate than ever to get an agreement with Trump that will remove at least a proportion of the sanctions that have crippled the country’s economy and provoked unrest in the population, particularly among the younger generation. Whether Trump’s comment about an imminent deal proves right, other rounds of talks are being planned and the signs are looking more positive than they have for months. Much will depend on whether those red lines can be nuanced.