Trump, Iran, and the logic of a new nuclear deal

Trump Administration Pursues Nuclear Limits Agreement With Iran After 2026 Conflict

In 2025, during his second term, President Donald Trump directed U.S. forces to join Israel in military operations against Iran that began February 28. The stated objectives included regime change and elimination of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles. After several months of airstrikes and naval actions that damaged Iranian military and industrial sites but stopped short of a ground invasion, the administration shifted to diplomatic talks aimed at restricting Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

This sequence follows President Trump’s earlier decision, during his first term, to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That agreement had been negotiated under President Barack Obama and involved limits on uranium enrichment and expanded international inspections in return for relief from nuclear-related sanctions. The current talks, held near Lucerne, Switzerland, involve Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. representatives. They include proposals for a reconstruction investment fund and partial easing of oil sanctions.

The administration has described the military phase as having weakened Iran’s position and created conditions for new limits. Vice President JD Vance stated that economic pressure could support diplomatic progress and that some Iranian officials have indicated willingness to alter past patterns of interaction with the United States. Public details on the precise origins of the February 28 operation, total casualties, or formal international legal authorization remain limited in official statements released to date.

Analysts differ on whether the shift to negotiations represents a pragmatic adjustment after the conflict or a change in prior policy goals. Arta Moeini of the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy has argued that domestic political conditions, including support within the president’s coalition for ending prolonged confrontation, could make congressional approval of any resulting agreement more feasible than under previous administrations. Rina Shah, a Republican strategist, has noted that any agreement would still face bipartisan scrutiny focused on whether it durably restricts Iran’s nuclear capabilities and influence through regional proxies.

A CBS News poll conducted after the conflict found that most respondents favored ending hostilities even while expressing continued concern about Iran’s nuclear program. Among Republicans, roughly four in ten indicated support for sustained military efforts aimed at regime change. Republican strategist Dave Wilson has pointed to the economic effects of the conflict, including higher inflation, as a factor that could affect voter reception of any final agreement ahead of the November midterms.

During the Obama administration, the JCPOA encountered opposition from Israel and several Gulf states concerned about Iran’s regional activities. In the current setting, Israeli officials have expressed reservations about the direction of talks, while some Gulf governments have indicated willingness to contribute to the proposed reconstruction fund. Max Abrahms of Northeastern University has attributed this shift in part to the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz and resulting economic disruptions. He has also observed that the decision not to commit ground forces may have affected perceptions of U.S. willingness to sustain coercive pressure.

Aaron David Miller, who served in the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has stated that Iranian leadership continues to prioritize ideological objectives alongside economic considerations. He has questioned whether investment mechanisms alone would alter the regime’s core priorities regarding military and proxy capabilities. Robert Einhorn, who participated in the original JCPOA negotiations, has noted that the current proposals involve broader sanctions relief than the 2015 agreement provided. He has also expressed doubt that a comprehensive verification framework could be completed within the 60-day timeline referenced in preliminary understandings, while observing that Iranian negotiators appear prepared to extend discussions.

The JCPOA was a multilateral arrangement that included commitments for Iran to transfer enriched uranium to Russia and involved coordinated positions among the United States, European parties, China, and Russia. Einhorn has indicated that the absence of similar unified international participation in the present talks could affect the durability of any limits reached. Iranian officials have maintained that full removal of remaining sanctions is a necessary condition for agreement.

The administration maintains that damage inflicted on Iranian military and industrial infrastructure during the conflict strengthens its negotiating position. Iranian representatives have not publicly confirmed internal debates over past policy approaches. Discussions continue without a finalized text, and both sides have described the process as ongoing.

Staff writer Sophie Hills contributed reporting.