During a high-profile speech in Saudi Arabia, then-President Donald Trump warned of intensified sanctions on Iran, labeling it “the most destructive force in the region” and blaming it for widespread suffering in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Yemen. At the same time, he left the door open for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Speaking at the King Abdulaziz International Conference Center in Riyadh, Trump said:
“I want to make a deal with Iran… But if Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbors, then we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure drive Iranian oil exports to zero like I did before.”
This threat came under the broader “maximum pressure” campaign adopted by the Trump administration, which included the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and the reinstatement of severe economic sanctions. His speech coincided with efforts to build a regional alliance to counter Iranian influence—most notably the unfulfilled vision of an “Arab NATO.”
Read also: Until “Trump’s Promise”: This Is How Washington Punished Damascus
Iran Pushes Back
Just hours later, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded, accusing Trump of portraying Iran as a global destabilizer and insisting that maximum pressure had failed before—and would fail again.
Tehran’s response underscored its hardened stance against U.S. policy, even as it faced growing internal unrest over economic decline and nationwide protests. Iranian leadership showed little interest in concessions without concrete guarantees.
A week earlier, Kayhan—a hardline Iranian newspaper—ran an editorial by Hossein Shariatmadari, a close confidant of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, demanding that negotiations with the U.S. be suspended unless Trump issued a formal apology to Iran. “Continuing talks with America means ignoring Iran’s Islamic strength and compromising national sovereignty,” the article argued.
This rhetoric reflected the entrenched hardline view within the Iranian regime that any negotiation with Washington equated to submission—especially following the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, a move perceived in Tehran as a direct blow to its regional standing.
According to The New York Times, Trump’s approach combined “carrot-and-stick” tactics, but lacked a clear framework for a deal that would genuinely curtail Iranian power. This ambiguity, the paper noted, likely hampered the parallel backchannel negotiations taking place in Muscat, Oman.
Indeed, those secret Oman-brokered talks yielded little progress, with both sides unwilling to compromise. The situation deteriorated further following Soleimani’s killing and a spike in attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq.
According to Axios, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff drafted a new nuclear proposal during the fourth round of talks. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi reportedly took the offer to Tehran for consultation with Khamenei and other senior officials.
However, Iranian leadership ultimately rejected the plan, citing fears of future U.S. backtracking—especially with the memory of the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the original deal still fresh.
Only the Israeli media praised the proposal, with Maariv describing it as a way to mask Israeli disappointment over the U.S.’s unilateral engagement with Syria’s transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa and Washington’s easing of sanctions on Damascus—moves seen as ignoring Israel’s security interests during an unprecedented assault launched by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which Israel believes was coordinated by Iran.
Read also: Shadow Conflict in Deir Ezzor: Iran’s Quiet Persistence in Syria
October 7: A Regional Turning Point
The Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, marked a dramatic shift in the region, seen by many in Israel as a declaration of war backed by Tehran and its network of regional proxies. The event prompted the Biden administration to reevaluate its Iran strategy amid escalating tensions in southern Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.
Rapid Developments
Following President Biden’s inauguration in January 2021, the U.S. attempted to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement through indirect negotiations in Vienna. However, progress was repeatedly stalled over the sequencing of commitments and Iran’s demand for guarantees against a future U.S. withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in 2023 and 2024 that Iran had enriched uranium beyond 60%, approaching weapons-grade levels. These findings alarmed global powers and intensified security coordination between the U.S., Israel, and key Gulf states.
Regional tensions escalated further after the Hamas attack, widely attributed to Iranian support. The conflict widened as Israel launched military campaigns against Iranian-linked sites in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. In response, Washington boosted its military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf. Israel, in turn, launched continuous military campaigns targeting sites it views as Iranian proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
In 2024, Iran held presidential and parliamentary elections that resulted in a decisive victory for the hardline conservative faction, significantly diminishing prospects for diplomatic progress. European attempts at mediation, led by France and Germany, also failed to yield breakthroughs.
At the same time, regional security alliances began to take clearer shape. Intelligence and defense cooperation deepened between Israel and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, with shared concern over Iranian drone and missile attacks launched from Yemen, Syria, and Iraq against American and Israeli interests.
As a result, the Iranian nuclear issue has evolved beyond a diplomatic standoff into a broader strategic conflict. Military escalations and geopolitical rivalries have overtaken negotiation tables, with no clear path toward a peaceful resolution in sight.
