TEHRAN, February 18 (MNA) – Riccardo Alcaro told Mehr News Agency that while Trump remains surrounded by hardliners, he is now more in control of his administration and appears genuinely interested in striking a deal with Iran.As Donald Trump returns to power, one of the most pressing questions in international relations is how his administration will approach Iran.
During his first term, Trump’s policy toward Tehran was defined by his "maximum pressure" campaign, a strategy driven by Iran hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton.
His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 led to escalating tensions, economic sanctions, and near-military confrontations.
Now, as he takes office for a second time, the question arises: will Trump continue down the same path, or is there a possibility of a new approach? Our interviewee, Head of Research at the International Affairs Institute (IAI), a think tank based in Rome, Riccardo ALCARO argues that while Trump remains surrounded by hardliners, he is now more in control of his administration and appears genuinely interested in striking a deal with Iran.
Unlike in his first term, when his advisors dictated much of his foreign policy, Trump may now have the ability to negotiate an agreement that even Congress and the Republican Party could support; an outcome that was never achieved with the JCPOA In this interview, we explore the potential direction of Trump’s Iran policy, the role of Europe in shaping negotiations, and the broader implications for regional stability.
Trump's second term and Iran; Potential policy shift or continuation of the same approach As the world closely watches the political landscape of the United States, one of the most pressing questions in international relations today is how Donald Trump’s return to power will shape global diplomacy.
Analysts are particularly focused on his approach to Iran, which has been central to US foreign policy discussions for years.
While many assume that Trump will continue his previous policies, a closer look reveals subtle but significant shifts.
During his first term, Trump pursued a "maximum pressure" policy on Iran, heavily influenced by figures like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton.
The strategy included stringent economic sanctions and a clear stance against the Iranian government.
However, despite the hardline approach, Trump showed some willingness to negotiate, though on terms that Iran found unacceptable.
Now, in his second term, the situation has evolved.
While his administration remains dominated by Iran hawks, such as National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump appears to be exercising greater control over his policies.
His recent reimplementation of maximum pressure tactics suggests continuity, yet his rhetoric indicates a potential openness to negotiation.
Unlike his first term, Trump has emphasized that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is his top priority, leaving room for discussions on other contentious issues, such as Iran’s regional influence and ballistic missile program.
Some experts argue that, paradoxically, Iran may have a better chance of securing a long-term deal with Trump than with any other US administration.
Though negotiations would be extremely challenging, an agreement backed by Trump and congressional Republicans could offer more stability than past diplomatic efforts.
Broader US foreign policy strategy The issue of negotiations with Iran must also be viewed in the context of Washington’s broader foreign policy.
While each administration brings its priorities, there is an overarching US strategy that transcends party lines.
Historically, both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought to prevent Iran from expanding its nuclear program, albeit through different means.
Trump's withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 was largely driven by his desire to dismantle Obama-era policies and his advisors’ traditional hardline stance on Iran.
However, as his second term unfolds, he may find himself more focused on securing a legacy through a diplomatic breakthrough.
Still, the unpredictability of Trump’s commitment to sustained negotiations raises concerns about the viability of any new agreement.
Europe’s role in future negotiations From a European perspective, Iran's skepticism toward the US is both understandable and challenging.
European nations, particularly the E3 (Germany, France, and the UK), have struggled to maintain the JCPOA in the face of US extraterritorial sanctions.
They have expressed frustration over Iran’s unwillingness to reactivate the JCPOA in 2022 and are alarmed by Iran’s detention of European nationals and its military ties with Russia, particularly its supply of drones used in the Ukraine conflict.
Europe is likely to support a new deal with Trump but will also be prepared to increase pressure on Iran if negotiations fail.
The possibility of activating the snapback mechanism—reimposing UN sanctions on Iran—remains on the table if Tehran does not agree to international nuclear oversight.
Potential consequences of Iran’s stance Iran’s leaders have long regarded negotiations with Washington as futile, citing past agreements the US violated.
This deep-rooted distrust, coupled with the US’s history of inconsistent policies, complicates any potential diplomatic engagement.
From a European standpoint, Iran’s refusal to negotiate could result in increased economic pressure and heightened regional tensions.
The risk of military confrontation, particularly from Israel or a US-Israeli coalition, would also rise.
However, even if Iran opts for negotiations, success is far from guaranteed.
Any potential deal would require Iran to make bold, proactive proposals, navigating a political landscape filled with spoilers from multiple sides—including factions within the US, Israel, and Iran itself.
A crossroads for Iran Ultimately, Iran finds itself at a critical juncture.
While it has legitimate reasons to distrust US intentions, it also faces the possibility of securing a more sustainable agreement under Trump’s leadership.
Such a deal, if approved by Congress, could open the door to renewed economic engagement, even though fundamental tensions between the two nations would persist.
Regardless of the path Iran chooses, the stakes could not be higher.
A hardline resistance strategy may lead to greater instability and economic hardship, while negotiations, though uncertain, could offer a rare opportunity for a more stable future.
The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Iran and the US can find common ground or whether their adversarial relationship will continue to escalate.
MNA