Will Israel or Trump Sabotage Iran Nuclear Talks?

by Liam Noble

Uncertainties over the outcome of Iran-America diplomatic talks swirl as both parties meet in Rome for high level meetings mediated by Oman. 

In March, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz introduced the Trump administration’s demands on Iran during a CBS Face The Nation interview: Dismantle the nuclear program, Zero uranium enrichment, End support for Hezbollah and the Houthis, and Curtail Iran’s ballistic missile program. Iran was given two months to comply or face “large scale military action.”

However, during the Trump-Netanyahu White House meeting on April 8^th, Trump announced the beginning of “direct talks” with Iran (which proved in reality to be indirect talks through Omani diplomats), blindsiding Netanyahu, who, according to Haaretz, was hoping to secure American support for a first strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in May. Trump vetoed it (for now), opting to end the “Iranian nuclear threat” through diplomatic efforts.

But US diplomatic efforts have been erratic. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff in early April stated that the United States would accept Iranian low level enrichment for energy production. Having pulled out of the treaty in 2018, the Trump administration seemed to be pushing for a new JCPOA under a different name. Then, on April 15^th, Witkoff reversed positions, insisting that Iran “must stop and eliminate” its nuclear enrichment program, bringing him in line with Waltz’s original bluster. This inconsistency of negotiating positions undermines efforts and trust between the two teams.

Are these demands designed to be unacceptable? Are negotiations being set up to fail? Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on April 19^th, “if [American negotiators] demonstrate seriousness of intent and do not make unrealistic demands, reaching agreements is possible.” But with these “maximum pressure” demands, Iran is being made an offer they must refuse, and the consequence for not submitting is military aggression.

B-2 strategic bombers have massed in Diego Garcia— the Indian Ocean outpost within convenient striking distance of both Iran and Yemen. Diego Garcia had been used by the US bomber fleet to make the opening strikes on Afghanistan and Iraq, in 2001 and 2003 respectively.

So the overarching threat has not wavered: accept the new terms, or America will attack. Trump has stated that a breakdown in negotiations means the US will launch an aggressive first strike on Iran. Optimistically, we could read this “maximum pressure campaign”as a bluff, focused on encouraging Iran to accept a quick deal, thus scoring an easy win for Trump. And Trump does need a win, especially in the face of economic calamity at home. A conflict with Iran would drain war coffers and critical supplies, as China hawks attempt to pivot U.S. strength towards the Pacific.

However, this administration is not moving in lockstep, and the divergence between Iran hawks and China hawks among the national security leadership means there is no concrete strategic direction. This impasse can open the door towards other actors exerting influence on events as they occur.

The Israel factor

Netanyahu’s political survival — and longstanding Israeli policy — depends on continuous escalation and pursuit of war, while Israel remains anything but stable. The potential for Netanyahu to derail peace talks and instigate conflict via an Israeli first strike should not be underestimated, and would be aimed at drawing the US into war on Israel’s behalf. Israel remains an influential presence in the American security apparatus, but Trump’s ego still rules US policy. After failing to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, and fumbling the tariff war with China, Trump may well demand a media win— a new Trump-branded JCPOA that Iranians have indicated they favor.

On April 20^th, new shipments of weapons to Israel included nine plane-loads of 2000-pound bombs and a resupply of THAAD missile interceptors.   But only the US possesses bombers capable of carrying the largest bunker-busting bombs.  While diplomatic talks continue, Israel is being handed the means to sabotage everything, and ignite the region into full-blown war between nation-states.

But Iran is not an easy target for a variety of reasons. Iranian nuclear refinement, weapons production, and missile sites have moved underground, and Iran’s Zagros Mountains make for secure natural defenses against air raids. Iranian and Russian military cooperation is unprecedented, with Iran possessing S-400 anti-air missile defense systems, the most effective available, which helped deter Israeli aggression against Iran in October 2024, after Iran retaliated with hypersonic missiles against the Iron Dome.  US military bases in the region could also be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks. Now, Iran has deployed defensive missile systems forward onto the Gulf islands, with Supreme Leader Khamenei stating that any aggression would be met with a “hard slap,” as reported by Kurdistan24. A “hard slap” means proportional retaliation and deterrence, not war. Iran does not want war— it wants regional stability.

There are three likely possible outcomes here:

1. The maximum pressure was a bluff, and the U.S. and Iran accept a new version of the same old JCPOA.
2. Iran refuses the “maximum demands” that undermine its sovereignty, and the US attacks.
3. Iran accepts the new JCPOA, and Israel attacks anyway.

Unlike Israel, Iran, along with every other state in the region, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  For its part, Iran is expected to propose a long-standing counteroffer: a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone. Iran will not pursue nuclear arms (which its leaders say is forbidden under Islamic law), and Israel will dismantle their own. This will not be accepted by the United States, but it does illustrate who in the region wants peace, and who relies on war.