Despite US President Donald Trump’s startling proposals and unpredictable rhetoric unsettling traditional allies, many in Iran’s intellectual and policy circles are responding with measured optimism.
Mr Trump's aggressive approach to ending “forever wars” has raised eyebrows but it may be starting to bear fruit with Tehran.
The two sides have been laying the groundwork for long-anticipated talks in recent weeks, at a time when Iran’s regional influence has waned. The potential negotiations carry particular weight for the region at a time of conflict and heightened tension.
“Deep-rooted distrust has always existed within Iranian policy venues and policy departments,” said Seyed Emamian, assistant professor in public policy and co-founder of Governance and Policy Think Tank in Tehran.
“But at the same time, if Trump is going to be committed to his peace project, I think there would be an opportunity for both countries, especially considering Trump’s personality,” Mr Emamian told The National. “He is, to some extent, an unconventional US president, and with his personal and ambitious approach, something may become possible that has never been on the table before.”
Mr Trump has said he wants to negotiate with Iran rather than resort to military means, as he seeks to limit Tehran's nuclear programme. After relaunching his “maximum pressure” campaign, the US President sent a letter to Iran's leadership, urging Tehran to negotiate a new nuclear deal. The letter was delivered last month by Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, during a visit to Tehran.
Iran responded by signalling that diplomacy is potentially on the table, calling Mr Trump’s letter a bag of “threats and opportunities”. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later announced that Tehran had replied, potentially paving the way for talks on its nuclear programme and broader Middle East policies.
Tehran seemed to go a step further this month when Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani visited Iraq to help uphold an unofficial truce with the US after the Gaza ceasefire collapsed, sources told The National. His visit followed Israel’s renewed offensive, in which hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, and raised the risk of reigniting other fronts.
Days later, the key visit aimed at preventing escalation was followed by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff saying Mr Trump was working to build trust and was “open to an opportunity to clean it all up with Iran” to avoid armed conflict, in remarks that many experts in Tehran saw as a potential policy U-turn.
“What Steve Witkoff said a few days ago was very interesting,” affirmed Mr Emamian. “It introduced a new approach to the deal. Trump’s personality brings both hope and concern. We’re very interested to see whether he’s truly committed to his peace project. If so, it could create a huge opportunity for both countries to reach a kind of agreement they never imagined before.”
However, the Iranian academic warned that the negotiations won’t be easy as the situation keeps evolving rapidly, accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of being “determined to push the US into conflict” with Iran.
In 2015, the US and other world powers signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement with Iran that imposed limits on Tehran's nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. The US has accused Iran of trying to develop a nuclear weapon but Tehran has always maintained that its programme is for peaceful purposes. Mr Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018, during his first term in the White House, citing security concerns.
While Iran denies seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, it is “dramatically” accelerating enrichment of uranium to 60 per cent purity – a short step from the 90 per cent purity needed to create nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency has warned. Mr Araghchi said he believed it was no longer possible to revive the 2015 deal and attempting to do so would not serve Iran's interests.
Mr Araghchi, who was among Iran's negotiators who agreed to the 2015 nuclear deal, said the agreement could not be revived in the same format because of Tehran's nuclear development advancement and increased US sanctions. However, he suggested the deal could serve as a basis for another potential agreement.
Like courage for a soldier
Parallel to the signals of opportunity, the US has continued to impose sanctions on Iran, with Mr Trump’s original goal being to drive the country’s oil exports to near zero. The Iranian rial has now fallen below 1 million to the US dollar, losing more than half its value since President Masoud Pezeshkian took office last year.
The pressure campaign and news of the talks comes at a time when Iran's 'axis of resistance' has faced setbacks in the Middle East, with a series of blows to its key allies. Hamas is still being targeted by Israel in the war in Gaza, Lebanon's Hezbollah has been significantly weakened in its war with Israel, former Syrian president Bashar Al Assad was overthrown in December, while in Yemen, Houthi rebels are facing renewed US attacks.
The US President now appears to be seeking to capitalise on what seems to be Iran’s weakened position and reopen the door to a potential comprehensive agreement that would address not only Iran’s nuclear activities but also its regional influence and support for armed groups.
Iranian political expert Ali Montazeri predicted the early stages of talks would steer clear of regional issues and Iran’s regional influence. “Sensitive matters such as ballistic missiles or Iran’s regional allies will also not be included,” he explained. "From Iran’s perspective, the main topic will be the nuclear issue."
However, if progress is made on this front, “there may be a possibility of opening dialogue on other matters in the future”, he added. And, if nuclear negotiations fail, “we may face a dead end, where one of the options on the table could be military confrontation”.
Before Tehran’s formal response to Mr Trump’s letter, the Iranian leadership projected a complex mix of signals regarding the possibility of renewed negotiations. While some officials hinted at openness to dialogue, others struck a more defiant tone, framing the US approach as untrustworthy. Iranian state media one day warned of US intentions, then the next hinted that diplomacy was still possible.
of GPTT think tank
Behind the scenes, internal debate within Iran’s political establishment appeared to shape this confusion. Hardliners warned against falling into what they saw as a trap, while more pragmatic figures emphasised the potential benefits of engaging with Washington, especially under a US leader perceived as unpredictable but possibly willing to offer concessions.
Compounding the uncertainty were regional developments, particularly the collapse of the Gaza ceasefire and rising tension with Israel, which heightened Tehran’s sense of vulnerability and urgency. While the leadership recognised the dangers of escalating confrontation, especially with US military presence nearby, there was also a clear effort to maintain leverage. By signalling both resistance and openness, Tehran has sought to navigate a volatile landscape, half opening a door.
An Iranian political adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity said the vital question for the regime was: "how can it negotiate with a party that violated its commitments, broke its promises and destroyed the deal that was reached with the international community regarding Iran’s nuclear programme?"
At the time of the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran's relationships with its neighbours were strained and the agreement deal was met with suspicion by many in the region. Today, there are improved relations with some Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but deep mistrust remains, especially over Iran’s continuing support for armed groups and its missile programme. Tehran’s neighbours have long urged it to scale back its backing of militant organisations and instead prioritise direct, state-to-state diplomacy.
“There are some different views inside Iran about whether Iran should keep itself too close to non-state actors instead of being much more open for talking with states in the region rather than with the non-state actors,” Dr Emamian said.
“I am one that has been discussing these kinds of issues for a long time with Iranian policymakers, that we should think differently with regard to the current, fast-changing contextual shift in the region.”
In New Delhi last month, Seyyed Mohammad-Kazem Sajjadpour, head of the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran and adviser to the Foreign Minister, echoed the view that the current shifting sands in the region represent an opportunity.
“The essence of diplomacy is about activism and action in the sense that hope for a diplomat is like courage for a soldier and water for a fish,” he told a panel moderated by The National.
Khalil Afif contributed to this report from Beirut
