In a recent New Yorker article, Isaac Chotiner explores the notion that any plausible Iran nuclear deal negotiated under the Trump administration could be perceived as a humiliation for President Trump. Chotiner argues that Trump's aggressive stance against the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he withdrew from in 2018, has created a situation where any new agreement would require significant concessions, potentially undermining his earlier position.
Chotiner highlights that the Trump administration's 'maximum pressure' campaign, including sanctions, has failed to bring Iran to the negotiating table on U.S. terms. Instead, Iran has advanced its nuclear program, enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels, according to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This progress reduces the leverage the U.S. might have had in negotiations.
The article suggests that a deal acceptable to both sides would likely involve the U.S. lifting many sanctions and Iran rolling back its nuclear activities, which could be framed as a retreat from Trump's original demands. Chotiner notes that such an outcome would be a stark reversal from Trump's 2018 withdrawal, which he had touted as a victory against a 'terrible' deal.
Critics of the current administration argue that the path to a new agreement is fraught with political risks, as any compromise could be attacked by hardliners within Trump's own party. Meanwhile, supporters of diplomacy contend that a deal, even if imperfect, is preferable to the alternative of a nuclear-armed Iran or military conflict.
As of May 2026, no formal negotiations have been confirmed, but indirect talks through European intermediaries continue. The outcome remains uncertain, but Chotiner's analysis underscores the complex legacy of Trump's Iran policy.
