[Salon] High Stakes in the Middle East: US-Iran Talks, Israeli Red Lines, and Regional Implications



High Stakes in the Middle East: US-Iran Talks, Israeli Red Lines, and Regional Implications

Summary: despite progressing technical talks between White House negotiator Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, significant uncertainties remain regarding the goals and duration of a potential agreement, especially given Iran's preference for immediate sanctions relief through a "skinny" deal.

We thank Jon Alterman, who holds the Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for today's newsletter.

Talks between White House negotiator Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi seem to be progressing well, with technical talks begun last weekend. Still, much remains unclear, including what kinds of outcomes each side is targeting and how long an agreement might extend. The Iranians probably favor a “skinny” deal, providing some immediate sanctions relief without locking themselves into a permanent agreement made at a point of maximum weakness.

It is that weakness that helps draw the Trump administration’s attention. Not surprisingly, the talks take place at a time when the United States has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East and escalated operations against the Iranian-supported Huthi rebels in Yemen, and after Trump signaled a willingness to strike Iran if the talks are unsuccessful. That is to say, Trump feels he has prepared for these talks by building leverage. Meanwhile, Iran’s proxies across the Middle East have weakened, the economy is reeling, and the energy prices that supply 60% of Iranian government revenues are softening.

It would be a mistake to be too optimistic about the likelihood of a quick US win, though. The Iranian negotiating team has decades of experience with a succession of American presidents, and it knows the nuclear file backwards and forwards. It also knows the kinds of negotiating moves that Americans have found attractive in the past, and the kinds of mistakes previous administrations have made in negotiations. The team is patient, in part because the U.S. relationship is overwhelmingly the key strategic dilemma for Iranian national security, while understanding Iran is a far lower priority for US administrations.


United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Aragchi will resume nuclear talks next week

The Trump administration will have two related challenges. The first is keeping the negotiations moving forward at a sufficient pace to constrain the Iranian nuclear program in an effective way. Iran has sharply increased its production of highly enriched uranium since Trump’s 2024 election, and in February the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated they had enough material to be further enriched to produce six nuclear weapons, with additional material for a bomb being enriched every month. At minimum, the Trump administration will seek to slow down enrichment.

The second challenge is not alarming the Israelis that it is giving the Iranians too much in the negotiations. Israelis across the political spectrum are united in seeing Iran as an existential threat. If they fear Iran is getting too much from the negotiations Israel may seek to scuttle them by acting unilaterally against Iran, either through overt military means or covert tactics.

Ideally, the two challenges feed into each other, with the Americans using the threat of Israeli action to drive the Iranians toward an agreement, and the Iranians using the prospect of a large stockpile of enriched uranium to push toward a deal. But much could go wrong, including an Israeli attack that seeks to draw the US into the sort of open-ended confrontation with the Iranians that the Trump administration has long sought to avoid in the Middle East.

Gulf states are likely to quietly cheer both the negotiations and the threat of Israeli action if the Iranians emerge with too much from them. For years, they have sought their own immediate dialogue with the Iranians while pushing outside powers to deter Iranian action. They see their own security threats from Iran as an enduring problem that has more to do with 2,000 years of Persian history than 45 years of the Islamic Republic. Yet they also fear that any Iranian response to an attack is likely to hit them—nearby soft targets—before it hits either the United States or Israel. Israel’s ability to withstand Iranian air attacks in April and October of last year, with the active support of both the United States and its Arab neighbors, has diminished Iran’s deterrent against Israel while making it more likely that Iran would seek to strike targets closer to home.

For the Iranians, Trump is an enticing negotiating partner. In part, he seems keen to make a deal, appears impatient, and does not seem preoccupied with details. For an Iranian team that knows the nuclear file backwards and forwards, Trump seems an easier prospect than his predecessors. Perhaps even more importantly, Trump would negotiate from “inside the tent” of Iranian critics. Given his own politics and his record on Iran and on Israel, he is better positioned to defend a deal than his predecessors were. They all battled Republican and pro-Israeli critics. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that Israel or the Gulf Arab states would be openly critical of a Trump deal with Iran the same way they were of Obama’s Iran deal, the JCPOA in 2015.

Still, an agreement with Trump would bear the risk of him simply ignoring it, as he seemed to do after he tweaked the 1994 North America Free Trade Agreement in 2018 and rebranded it as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and then threatened to unilaterally impose high tariffs on Canada and Mexico by executive order since returning to the White House in January 2025.

For Trump, negotiating with Iran is an obvious option to explore. Partly, it reflects his penchant for negotiations and his confidence in his negotiators. It also reflects his quest for a Nobel Peace Prize. Coordinating closely with Israel over Iran was the principal reason Netanyahu visited Trump earlier in April, for the second time in two months. The potential for a division over Iran strategy is real, and the potential grows the closer US and Iran talks get to an agreement.

Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.


follow us on TwitterLinkedIn and Facebook

Copyright © 2025 Arab Digest, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email as you are subscribed to the Arab Digest.
Our mailing address is:
Arab Digest
3rd Floor
207 Regent Street
London, W1B 3HH
United Kingdom



 To unsubscribe from this list email editor@arabdigest.org



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.