Strategic Approaches for Trump to Secure a New Nuclear Agreement with Iran

The Trump administration is grappling with a difficult challenge in its efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

A significant part of this predicament stems from the president’s own decisions: In 2018, he withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), labeling it the “worst deal ever.” Since then, Iran has significantly expanded its nuclear program, deploying thousands of advanced centrifuges, some located deep underground, and reportedly accumulating enough enriched uranium to produce multiple nuclear weapons within weeks. Under the original agreement, many restrictions were set to last until 2031, which would have delayed Iran’s nuclear weapons capability by several months or more.

President Trump now seeks a new deal aimed at the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s enrichment capabilities. As U.S. negotiators prepare for a fourth round of talks in Oman, they face the same hurdles that complicated the original agreement: persuading Iran to accept substantial nuclear limitations without resorting to military intervention if talks fail.

The previous agreement offered Iran partial sanctions relief in return for long-term limits on uranium enrichment and a strict inspection regime. To secure Iran’s consent, the United States accepted certain compromises, including allowing domestic enrichment and implementing “sunset clauses” on some provisions. The deal did not cover Iran’s ballistic missile development or its support for proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which have long contributed to instability in the Middle East. However, it succeeded in its primary goal of blocking Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons without resorting to force.

Currently, Iran’s regional proxy forces have been weakened militarily, and its air defenses have been diminished by Israeli strikes, leaving the country more vulnerable than at any time since the 1979 revolution. Yet, Iranian leadership remains resolute. They insist on maintaining their nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile programs and demand substantial economic relief and assurances against future U.S. withdrawal before agreeing to a new deal. Unless Iran softens its stance, the U.S. faces a stark choice: accept a deal resembling the one previously rejected or consider military options with unpredictable outcomes.

There may, however, be an alternative approach.

Rather than negotiating a similar deal along the lines of “same for same,” the U.S. could propose a “more for more” strategy: offering Iran increased sanctions relief in exchange for deeper and longer-lasting restrictions on its nuclear program. This could include lifting secondary sanctions on oil exports and providing economic incentives for an extended or indefinite agreement. In return, Iran would face tighter controls on advanced centrifuges, uranium stockpiles, underground enrichment activities, and enhanced verification measures. If the economic incentives are substantial, the agreement might also address Iran’s long-range missile program and its military support for adversaries such as Russia and Yemen’s Houthis.

This approach could appeal to Iran, whose economy is currently in dire straits due to mismanagement and plummeting oil prices. Economic indicators reveal stagnating growth, inflation surpassing 30 percent, unemployment near 10 percent, and a sharply devalued currency. The Iranian public, eager for economic relief and having recently elected a president focused on economic recovery, would likely welcome any nuclear agreement that promises tangible benefits. For the U.S., this strategy could represent a political victory, enabling claims of securing a stronger deal with more comprehensive nuclear restrictions and economic advantages.