By Brian Hudson

U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly its approach to the 2025 nuclear negotiations with Iran, not only constitutes a betrayal of its Arab allies but also pushes the region toward instability. By derailing these negotiations, the U.S. is simultaneously jeopardizing Gulf investments, global energy security, Israel’s safety, and ultimately its own long-term strategic interests.

Introduction

The Middle East in 2025 remains a hotspot of geopolitical tension. Nuclear talks between the United States and Iran, which began in April 2025, aim to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for partial sanctions relief. However, these negotiations—paired with Washington’s contradictory policies toward its Arab allies—have raised serious questions about U.S. commitment to regional security. What has rendered diplomacy an ineffective and decorative tool in this context is the persistent American reluctance to commit to any long-term—or even medium-term—agreement. This trend was evident during Trump’s first term in office, a presidency more notable for withdrawing from international agreements than for joining or honoring them. The Trump administration’s legacy includes exiting the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), handing Afghanistan over to the Taliban, withdrawing from the WHO, cutting funding to UNRWA, and even threatening to exit NATO. The issue here is that, contrary to the image Trump tries to project of himself as a champion of peace and development, one could argue that his record contains not a single successful instance of peace-making. Can the renewed nuclear negotiations with Iran serve as a litmus test for Trump’s return to diplomacy?

The Nuclear Talks: Incentivizing Iran Toward Nuclear Armament

The U.S.–Iran nuclear negotiations, which began in April 2025 in Muscat and Rome, officially aim to eliminate the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and place them under IAEA oversight. But America’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, coupled with its disregard for any European role in the talks, signals a deeper shift in its global doctrine. A similar approach was evident during U.S.–Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, from which Kyiv was excluded—just as the earlier handover of Afghanistan to the Taliban was carried out without notifying the then-national government. This points to a new model: an America minus Europe, minus NATO, and minus any meaningful political partners.

While the U.S. was the party that walked away from a multilateral nuclear accord, it now reappears as a complainant and enforcer. It is pursuing regime change in Tehran through maximum pressure and public strategies that include starving the population, as it has openly stated. Despite such deep-seated mistrust, the onus now appears to be on Washington. If Trump were to succeed in negotiating a long-term peace accord and restoring bilateral diplomatic ties with Tehran—broken since the Carter era—he would secure one of the most consequential Middle East policy legacies of any modern U.S. president. He would also reassert Iran as a potential strategic partner for U.S. containment of China and Russia and regaining leverage over the broader Middle East. Amid these nuclear negotiations, there are two key points worth examining—each with the potential to fundamentally shape Trump’s regional strategy:

 First is Iran's proposal for a nuclear enrichment consortium with Arab states. This unprecedented initiative could serve as a significant step toward preserving the non-proliferation regime in the region and reaching a permanent solution for managing Iran’s nuclear capacity while politically normalizing the country. Since Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, producing about 9 kilograms per month—effectively reducing its breakout time to under a week. Re-engaging with Iran, therefore, could be viewed as a rescue operation for global non-proliferation, possibly Trump's most meaningful foreign policy achievement to date.

Second, the United States must coordinate more closely with its European allies to control Israeli influence and, for once, liberate its Middle East policy from being subordinate to Israeli agendas. Under both Trump and Biden, Washington has functioned as a facilitator for Israeli ambitions—from the Abraham Accords to unwavering political backing during the Gaza war, and adopting an aggressive posture against Iran. The American insistence during current nuclear talks on a “zero enrichment” policy for Iran is essentially an Israeli demand meant to sabotage negotiations. This approach benefits Israel by maintaining regional instability, which reinforces its military supremacy. While Arab states are interested in normalizing ties with Israel, ongoing conflict would upend those efforts and endanger energy security—the cornerstone of Arab development.

A successful nuclear deal with Iran—culminating in step-by-step diplomacy, reopening embassies, and full restoration of ties—could become the most significant achievement of Trump’s Middle East policy, perhaps even his entire political legacy. Iran is the largest country in the region with unparalleled geostrategic value. If the U.S. can incorporate Iran into its camp, it will gain a powerful leverage point against Russia, access to an 80-million-strong consumer market, and a rare opportunity to cultivate economic ties in a largely untapped economy. Such a realignment would also support Washington’s ambition for “zero-conflict” diplomacy in the Middle East—crucial for redirecting focus to its strategic rivalry with China.

Brian Hudson is a freelance foreign policy writer whose work has been featured on news analysis platforms such as Commondreams, ModernDiplomacy, and EurasiaReview.