The motorcade of Donald Trump’s nuclear envoy, Steve Witkoff, was delayed on the way to the Omani ambassador’s residence in Rome, where the United States was set to begin negotiations with Iran. His car missed the driveway, backed into a tight street, before it had to circle around again. As far as metaphors go, it was almost too perfect. This is Trump’s Iran policy in 2025: hurried, high-stakes, and dangerously imprecise.
The U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome on April 19 marked the second round of negotiations between the two adversaries, following a preliminary session in Oman on April 12. The fact that these talks are happening at all is remarkable — especially under Trump. He famously tore up the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration and described it as “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made”. During his first term Trump pursued a “maximum pressure” strategy against Tehran that failed to force Iran to halt its nuclear efforts.
Trump called for nuclear talks in a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but threatened military action if his request was rebuffed. But the President insisted the talks must conclude in two months, creating immense political and military risks.
Talks ‘moving forward’ after Second Rome meeting
So far, both sides have chosen diplomacy and appear ready to advance the conversation, with U.S. officials telling reporters that they were making “very good progress.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi agreed when speaking on Iranian state television and indicated they would proceed to “technical talks.” Another round of higher-level meetings is planned for April 26.
For Trump, the aim is simple on paper. Speaking from the Oval Office the day before the Rome talks, he said, “I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific. But they can’t have a nuclear weapon. And if they have a nuclear weapon, you’ll all be very unhappy.”
Beneath this simplicity, however, lies a deeply complex and fractured process. The U.S. has faced this long road before but distrust between Tehran and Washington is at an all-time high.
The Rome meeting lasted four hours and was characterized by indirect exchanges mediated by Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Al-Busaidi. U.S. officials said they hoped to establish a framework for how negotiations would proceed. The Iranians described the session as “useful,” though they reportedly pushed back on Washington’s demand that Tehran end all uranium enrichment. Iranian officials called that a “red line” they would never accept.
From “fire and fury” to forced diplomacy
The geopolitical backdrop to these negotiations is fraught. Since the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran has dramatically accelerated its enrichment program and expanded its effort to enrich uranium to a 60% level (far beyond what is required for civilian uses). Experts believe Tehran possesses enough enriched uranium to build at least six nuclear weapons within weeks if it moves to 90% weapons-grade enrichment.
At the same time, Tehran faces a deep economic and social crisis. Annual inflation has averaged 30% since 2018 and exceeded 40% in March 2025. The Iranian rial has lost over 90% of its value in seven years. Power blackouts, water shortages, and high unemployment have exacerbated public unrest. Consequently, the Iranian demands reportedly include sanctions relief, access to billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets, and an end to the US maximum pressure campaign targeting Iranian oil exports.
But the Iranian regime is shaken not just by economic collapse but also by the sudden demise of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (an ally). Furthermore, the defeat of Tehran’s proxies (Hamas and Hezbollah) coupled with Israeli air/missile strikes that reduced Iran’s defenses have left Tehran in a more weakened state than any time since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
At home, Tehran is contending with the aftermath of Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022. She died after being arrested by Iran’s religious morality police for not wearing a hijab improperly in public, triggering a wave of protests seen as a threat to the regime. The unexpected death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a 2024 helicopter crash and the fragile health of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have also left Iran's internal leadership teetering.
Hardliners remain opposed to Western reengagement, with Ali Shamkhani, a senior Iranian official, posting on X that Iran was seeking “a balanced agreement, not surrender.” At the same time, newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian, a moderate, has argued against this posture to get relief from crushing economic sanctions.
The Israel factor
It is impossible to separate the current negotiations from Israel’s strategic posture. Trump’s announcement about the negotiations occurred at the conclusion of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington. This trip was ostensibly about tariffs, but it is reported to have focused primarily on Iran.
Netanyahu is believed to have sought a greenlight for joint U.S.-Israel military strikes against Iran to destroy its nuclear capabilities. He returned to Jerusalem without it but make no mistake: Israel is working to influence these talks. It has been reported that Netanyahu’s closest security advisers, including Mossad chief David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, met privately with Steve Witkoff in Paris the day before the Rome talks.
Israel has a clear endgame, which Netanyahu has described clearly: “Iran must never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.” Consequently, he will continue to urge the military option as talks continue to totally dismantle or destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and potentially bring about the collapse of the Iranian regime.
But the biggest risks of this process could be that Trump is negotiating with a sword in one hand and a stopwatch in the other. Should the two-month window close without progress, he may find himself boxed in, especially with hawkish advisors like National Security Adviser Walz and Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee urging action.
Trump’s gamble
The White House’s approach is defined less by strategic coherence than by the president’s style: time-boxed threats, personal emissaries, and maximalist demands. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is a real estate developer with neither prior foreign policy experience nor a background in nuclear weapons/strategy. He’s also concurrently negotiating with Russia on a Ukraine ceasefire and seeking to broker a deal between Israel and Hamas. Thus far, he has had little success in any of these efforts.
The sidelining of Secretary of State Marco Rubio has baffled foreign diplomats and raised questions about the institutional seriousness of the U.S. position. Rubio reportedly opposes Witkoff’s approach but has been marginalized.
One pressing question is whether Trump will pursue an executive agreement — as Obama did with the JCPOA — or try to secure a Senate-approved treaty. The latter might satisfy Iran’s desire for an agreement that could not be quickly repudiated, but it is unlikely given the complexity of the Senate ratification process. He would face opposition from some Senate Republicans and need some support from Democrats. This would slow the effort enormously, and Trump will likely avoid risking a political loss.
There is also a matter of scope. The Trump teams has argued in past that Iran must limit its ballistic missile program and halt support for its regional proxies. This includes the Houthis in Yemen, who have conducted missile attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and Israel. This has resulted in the ongoing American air campaign that began 15 March. Iran wants the talks focused on its nuclear program. Ironically, Tehran appears willing to accept a return to the JCPOA that Trump withdrew from and criticized.
This mismatch in priorities could quickly torpedo the process. Meanwhile, whatever is agreed to must include verification protocols that both sides find acceptable — which is a tall order.
The cost of failure
Should these negotiations collapse, the consequences will be swift and severe.
First, military conflict is almost certain to follow. Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow are deeply buried between 80- and 100-meters underground. Neutralizing them would require a prolonged, multi-day bombing campaign involving Israeli aircraft as well as American strategic bombers, aerial refueling assets, and extensive intelligence coordination. The risks to pilots and aircraft would be considerable.
The U.S. already has two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region and has repositioned six B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia — roughly 30% of its entire stealth bomber fleet. In short, the Pentagon is sending a clear warning to Tehran while preparing for the possibility that diplomacy might fail.
Second, Iran has vowed to retaliate on multiple fronts: through proxy attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, missile strikes on American allies in the region like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 20% of global oil shipments pass through this waterway. A successful blockade — even a temporary one — could spike oil prices and shock financial markets.
Third, the geopolitical spillover could be profound. China, which now purchases more than 80% of Iran’s oil exports, would face an energy squeeze. March 2025 saw the highest levels of Iranian oil imports into China since mid-2023. Beijing, already reeling from an ongoing “trade war” with Washington, would be forced to recalibrate. This could exacerbate tensions with the U.S., accelerate Beijing’s energy diversification, or force it to pressure Tehran to accept a deal.
Russia would benefit from a U.S.-Iran clash. Increased tensions in the Gulf could distract Washington from Ukraine and elevate oil prices — a boon for Moscow’s war chest.
The bottom line
Trump has effectively put the world on another countdown clock, this one is for 60-days. The hope is that both sides can strike a face-saving deal that curbs Iranian ambitions without forcing total surrender. But hope is not a strategy. The reality is that Iran’s nuclear program has advanced significantly. Washington’s credibility is in tatters after the withdrawal from the JCPOA and years of sanctions. Israel is ready to act alone if diplomacy stalls. Trump’s instinct may be to rush, but the complexity of the task demands patience, expertise, and realism — three qualities that have rarely defined his foreign policy approach. If he pushes too hard and too fast, he may find that the collapse of negotiations is not the prelude to a quick military victory, but the opening act of a long and costly conflict.
The clock is ticking. And the world is watching.