Can Trump break the Iran deadlock and reshape the Middle East?

The negotiations between the United States and Iran over Iran's nuclear program remain fraught with deep disagreements. Yet Trump, more than any of his recent predecessors, has a unique opportunity to achieve an agreement that would serve their national interests and prevent engulfing the region in a horrific war, albeit both sides need to make significant concessions. That said, their desire to reach an agreement is compelling enough to overcome their principal differences.

Still, such an agreement would not be enough to engender the long-term regional security and stability that Iran, the Arab Gulf states, and the US would like to realize. However, reaching an agreement on Iran's nuclear program and concurrently normalizing US-Iran relations, will not only facilitate such an agreement but also defuse the endemic Israel-Iran hostility and foster regional peace and stability.

The Iranian position

Iran insists that its right to enrich uranium on its own soil is "non-negotiable" and a "definite red line," claiming enrichment is for peaceful, civilian use. Although Iran is willing to cap enrichment temporarily, it rejects indefinite restrictions and opposes extensive monitoring, viewing it as a violation of its sovereignty, and categorically rejects dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. Tehran is also desperate to lift crippling US sanctions to mitigate the growing public discontent, which could explode in the absence of economic relief. Iran wants to avoid war with the US and/or Israel, which could seriously threaten the government's survival, which the regime seeks to safeguard at any cost.

The US position

The US maintains a "no enrichment" red line, demanding the elimination of all domestic enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, insists on the dismantling of nuclear infrastructure, and rejects temporary freezes. The US seeks permanent, verifiable restrictions exceeding the 2015 JCPOA terms from which Trump withdrew, and would grant sanctions relief contingent on Iran's verifiable nuclear rollback, enhanced IAEA access, and stricter oversight. From Trump's perspective, a deal with Iran would stabilize the region, expand commerce and trade, and prevent China and Russia from gaining further ground.

The prospective contour of an agreement

Notwithstanding the differences between the US and Iran, I believe that they can still reach an agreement on the substance and technical issues, including the number of centrifuges to operate, shipping Iran's stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium to perhaps Russia, and verifiable nuclear rollback, with enhanced IAEA access and stricter oversight.

The sticking issue is Iran's insistence on its right to enrich uranium, to which the US sternly objects. Nevertheless, there are several options, one of which both sides may agree upon while still claiming to have met their objective. The possibilities are that: 1) Iran would freeze enrichment at current levels and dismantle advanced centrifuges; 2) Iran would be allowed to retain short-term enrichment rights to 3.67% while aligning with long-term US nonproliferation goals; or 3) Iran would be permitted to retain symbolic pilot-scale facilities under strict oversight by the IAEA, which mirrors the 2015 arrangement.

Trump should not insist on a 60-day deadline and threaten US military options after the deadline. Iran will resist negotiating under military threat as it finds it humiliating, driving mutual distrust over intentions and compliance. However, a timeline to reach an agreement should correspond to the progress made in the negotiations, but it cannot be open-ended.

Whereas such an agreement would reduce regional tensions, it will not end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the intense Israeli-Iranian enmity, Iran's bellicose regional rivalry, nor its support for its resistance surrogates, a recipe for continuing conflict and regional instability.

A unique opportunity for a new regional order

Concurrent negotiation of normalization of relations between the US and Iran would not only help reach an agreement on the enrichment issue but could lead to long-term regional peace and stability. Given Trump's unpredictability and unconventional approach, he is uniquely positioned to offer Iran an opportunity to change from being a source of regional instability and conflict to a constructive player. Iran may well be open to changing direction as long as the regime survives, its economy grows, and no foreign power meddles in its internal affairs. The timing is also highly favorable for Trump to make such a move, as Iran finds itself at its weakest state in the past two decades.

Iran's axis of resistance has crumbled-Hamas has been decimated, Hezbollah is substantially degraded, and the Houthis are being rendered increasingly ineffective-while losing its foothold in Syria, which was pivotal to projecting its regional power. Moreover, Israel largely crushed Iran's air defense system and destroyed a significant amount of its stockpile of ballistic missiles and drones, which in any case would be extremely ineffective given Israel's and its allies' robust air defense.

Given its weakness, Iran faces three options. First is to revamp its axis of resistance, which will take years and at a prohibitive cost. Israel was able to crush it in the past and can do so again, rendering this option highly undesirable.

Second, Iran could turn to developing nuclear weapons to deter future attacks on its soil while neutralizing Israel's nuclear capability. This option is laden with extraordinary danger as the US and/or Israel would more than likely attack its nuclear infrastructure, which Iran wants badly to prevent.