by Reza Asadian

Middle East Monitor

US policy towards Iran has been defined for years by confrontation, with successive administrations oscillating between diplomatic engagement and economic warfare. After President Donald Trump’s return to office in January, many expected a revival of the maximum pressure strategy, a policy that previously sought to isolate Iran through sanctions, military threats and diplomatic coercion. Initially, Trump’s approach to Iran was marked by paradoxical signals: on one hand, he signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum reinstating maximum pressure, threatening Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and regional influence; on the other hand, his administration refrained from outright military escalation, leaving room for diplomatic manoeuvring.

Now, recent developments suggest that the Trump administration may be pivoting toward a more pragmatic stance, one that focuses on nuclear verification rather than total Iranian capitulation.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Steve Witkoff, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East, disclosed the content of the letter that Trump had sent to Iran, signalling an opening for dialogue. Witkoff emphasised that the US is exploring the creation of a “verification programme” to ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme remains peaceful. Unlike previous demands, which linked nuclear negotiations to Iran’s regional activities and conventional military capabilities, Witkoff made no mention of pursuing Iran’s missile or drone programmes.

This rhetorical shift is notable. It suggests that Washington is considering an approach that could make an agreement with Tehran more feasible. Instead of insisting on Iran’s withdrawal from regional conflicts or the dismantling of its conventional military arsenal — conditions that have long been deal-breakers for Tehran — the administration is now focusing on the nuclear issue itself. If this approach remains consistent, it could open a path toward rapprochement.

This shift contrasts sharply with the stance that Trump adopted initially upon returning to office, when his administration revived the policy of maximum pressure, reinstating sanctions and leveraging diplomatic tools to corner Iran. This strategy bore a striking resemblance to the policies of George W. Bush in the early 2000s, when Washington sought to isolate Iran through the US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Back then, Iran responded not by capitulating, but by doubling down on its regional influence and accelerating its nuclear development.

Trump’s early months in office seemed to repeat this cycle. By banking on Iran’s economic vulnerabilities and internal divisions, his administration appeared to believe that Tehran would be forced to accept stringent conditions.

After Trump signed his memorandum and issued a clear threat to Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei categorically rejected the possibility of talks with Washington, stating that negotiating with the US would not be “intelligent, rational or honourable.” Later, during a parliamentary session on the day of the Iranian Minister of Economy’s impeachment, President Masoud Pezeshkian reinforced this position, saying that while he had personally supported negotiations, he would follow the Supreme Leader’s directive not to engage in talks with the US.

This sequence of events demonstrated that, rather than forcing Iran into submission, Trump’s actions reinforced Tehran’s resistance, with both the Supreme Leader and the President aligning on a firm rejection of dialogue with Washington.

What has changed, then, to prompt this shift in tone? Three factors stand out. First, a consistent US a. If the Trump administration is serious about shifting gears, it must avoid the contradictions that doomed past negotiations. This means keeping the focus on the nuclear file rather than tying an agreement to broader demands about Iran’s regional activities or domestic policies.

Then there is Iran’s willingness to engage. Although Tehran remains deeply sceptical about US intentions, given previous diplomatic failures, if Washington signals a genuine willingness to negotiate under reasonable terms, Iran may reciprocate, especially if economic relief is on the table.

Moreover, negotiations must develop quickly, as they must conclude before mid-summer, when the European troika (France, Germany and the UK) will face a critical deadline on whether to invoke the snapback mechanism. If the troika determines that Iran is noncompliant with its nuclear commitments, it can reinstate UN sanctions under the snapback clause, placing Tehran under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and potentially paving the way for military action. If talks do not yield results before this deadline, Iran could find itself under renewed international pressure, making a diplomatic resolution far more difficult to achieve.

If Trump’s team sees diplomacy as a tool to extract even greater concessions down the road, Tehran is unlikely to engage. However, if Washington focuses narrowly on nuclear verification — without attempting to dismantle Iran’s entire defence structure — it could finally create conditions for meaningful engagement.

US-Iran relations tend to have been defined by cycles of confrontation, broken agreements and lost diplomatic opportunities. The Trump administration now faces a choice: continue down the path of insisting on maximalist demands, an approach which has historically failed to yield results, or pursue a more targeted negotiation strategy that could lead to a viable nuclear accord. Witkoff’s recent remarks suggest a potential shift in policy, but whether this change is real or temporary remains to be seen.

If the US maintains a pragmatic approach — one that prioritises nuclear verification while setting aside broader demands — then a breakthrough with Iran may finally be within reach. However, if this is merely a tactical shift aimed at securing European backing for future pressure tactics, then the cycle of conflict will persist. The coming months will reveal whether Washington is truly interested in a deal, or if it is simply manoeuvring to keep Tehran in check.