President Donald Trump has adopted a significantly more pragmatic approach to negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme than was the case in his first term.

In pursuit of a new nuclear agreement, US and Iranian negotiators concluded a second round of Omani-mediated talks this weekend. Their intent is to replace the 2015 JCPOA nuclear accord. Trump withdrew from that accord in his first term and Iran subsequently suspended compliance with its obligations. The urgency of new negotiations is underlined by the fact that Iran has amassed enough near-weapons grade nuclear material to enable it to construct perhaps five nuclear warheads in less than six months if it chose to do so.

Still, Trump appears increasingly optimistic that he can cut a deal. Iranian officials have also offered tentative confidence that a new agreement might be reached. This new optimism flows from one key source.

Namely, Trump’s abandonment of the hardline negotiating strategy masterminded by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his first administration. The first Trump administration demanded that Iran suspend support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups as part of any broader nuclear agreement. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wasn’t willing to make this demand because it would represent a de facto surrender of the Islamic Republic’s theological mission. That mission is to expand its Shia-Khomeinist ideology across the Middle East.

Instead, Trump now seeks an agreement that is tightly designed to address Iran’s near-weapons grade stockpiles, and provides for robust snap-inspections/verification measures. That means Iran faces the credible prospect of major sanctions relief in return solely for nuclear-related concessions. The alternative is to trust that Trump is bluffing in threatening military action if diplomacy fails, and in deploying the military forces needed to attack Iran’s nuclear programme.

So while it’s unclear whether Iran would accept the verification measures the US would likely require as part of any new agreement, the basic offer is far better than previous proposals. Moreover, with Iran’s economy deteriorating, popular anger growing, and the regime’s allies in Hamas, Hezbollah, and various Iraqi militias under unprecedented pressure, Iran has an obvious interest in financial and security respite.

There is a complication, however. Israel is not happy with Trump’s preference for diplomacy. Israel views an Iranian nuclear programme as the precursor to a second Holocaust, threatening its small population of 10 million. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing Trump to authorise joint U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear programme while Iran remains off-balance. Indeed, Reuters reported on Saturday that Israel is now considering a more limited, unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear programme.

This threat likely serves as political signalling to Washington, reflecting Israel’s scepticism toward negotiations. In reality, Israel lacks the military capacity and resources to inflict more than moderate damage on Iran’s well-protected nuclear program. Even the US military is doubtful that it could successfully destroy Iran’s nuclear programme in its entirety without a major ground offensive.

That leaves Israel with the difficult choice between supporting Trump’s diplomacy or launching an unsuccessful attack which risks Trump’s rage and political retaliation. Put simply, in his second term, Trump is offering Iran a deal the regime might accept, and Israel can’t do much to resist.

---