What Prompted the United States and Iran to Begin Talks?

With Donald Trump taking office for his second term as U.S. President—and particularly given the timing, which coincided with major developments in the Middle East following the October 7, 2023 war, as well as significant U.S. military movements in the region, including ongoing strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and Iran’s unprecedented vulnerability stemming from painful Israeli strikes against the Iranian axis—many expected heightened tensions.

Despite the Iranian regime’s deeply entrenched view of America as the “Great Satan” since 1979, there is particular animosity toward Trump personally. This stems from several factors, including his withdrawal from the previous nuclear agreement, the imposition of the harshest sanctions on Iran, and the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

Given these conditions, many believed that Trump viewed Iran’s current weakness as an unprecedented opportunity to launch a decisive military attack on its nuclear and military sites. In addition, the hostile nature of the relationship between Trump and the Iranian regime was expected to reduce the chances of negotiations.

However, despite these developments and expectations, the United States and Iran have instead moved toward initiating diplomatic talks and negotiations. So, what are the main reasons behind this decision by both sides?

Key Reasons Behind Iran’s Shift Toward Diplomacy with Trump

In general, concessions, tactical flexibility, and the deliberate use of delay when necessary are key components of Iran’s broader strategy known as Strategic Patience. However, there are also specific, direct reasons behind the timing of Iran’s acceptance of talks and its openness toward Trump. The most important of these are:

Fear of a U.S.-Israeli Military Strike

Iran has never feared a direct U.S.-Israeli military strike on its nuclear and military sites as much as it does today. This fear has intensified with the rise of Donald Trump and his repeated threats of a potential strike on Iran’s interior should it refuse to enter negotiations. Given Iran’s current situation—marked by the erosion of its regional influence and a severe domestic economic and political crisis—such a strike could lead to widespread chaos and potentially the collapse of the regime. From the Iranian regime’s perspective, all concessions and losses, as well as acts of aggression, expansionism, and support for terrorism, are considered acceptable if they serve to preserve the regime’s survival.

The Fracturing of the Axis of Resistance in the Region

One of the Iranian regime’s most important deterrents against a direct U.S.-Israeli attack has been its regional influence—through Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Assad regime in Syria, all bordering Israel. Iran has consistently conveyed—both directly and indirectly—that any military strike on its territory would provoke retaliatory attacks on Israel from these fronts. However, after sustained Israeli strikes on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, and the collapse of the Assad regime, Iran has lost a key strategic advantage. In particular, with the fall of Assad, Iran can no longer easily supply Hezbollah via Syrian territory. In short, Iran’s influence along Israel’s borders has been severely weakened.

In the event of a military strike on Iran, it now lacks the capacity to exert significant pressure on Israel or the United States through its militias positioned near Israel’s borders. This has become increasingly evident in light of the limited strategic and military impact of both the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthis on Israel. As a result, Iran has lost its primary tools of deterrence, defense, and offensive capability against Israel. This unprecedented level of weakness has made the prospect of a direct attack an existential threat to the regime. Consequently, Iran quickly moved to engage in negotiations with the Trump administration in an effort to avoid this potentially catastrophic scenario.

Doubts About the Safety of Its Underground Nuclear and Military Sites

Iran has long believed that its key nuclear and military facilities, located deep underground, were immune to any form of aerial bombardment. However, the Israeli assassinations of Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safi al-Din—both believed to have occurred in secure underground locations—have raised serious concerns within Iran regarding the safety of its subterranean infrastructure. These fears have been further compounded by Israel’s impressive intelligence achievements, including its ability to locate Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, gather sensitive intelligence, and carry out complex electronic military operations—such as the “Pager” operation in Lebanon. These developments have led Iranian officials to suspect that Israel may be capable of penetrating these underground sites by means beyond conventional bunker-busting bombs. Consequently, Iran now believes that its underground facilities are not secure in the event of a U.S.-Israeli strike, given the advanced military and intelligence capabilities Israel has demonstrated over the past year and a half. In response, Iran deemed it crucial to avoid such a scenario in order to safeguard its military and nuclear infrastructure—prompting its decision to engage in negotiations.

Limited Chinese and Russian Support for Iran’s Defense

Iran is acutely aware that, should it come under military attack—especially given the fragmentation of its regional axis and the diminished strength of its proxy militias—it would face such attack largely alone. Russia, entangled in the war in Ukraine and already unable to provide adequate support to the Assad regime, would be in no position to defend Iran or offer meaningful assistance. Meanwhile, China, driven by complex strategic and economic interests, is unlikely to intervene militarily or offer Iran any substantial or effective support in a potential conflict.

These four factors illustrate that Iran’s primary motivation for entering negotiations with the U.S. administration is to avert military confrontation, rather than to reach a comprehensive and realistic agreement. Iran may use the talks to stall for time, waiting for regional tensions to subside or for shifts in global focus that might divert U.S. attention away from the Middle East and the Iranian issue.

Beyond the reasons that prompted the Iran to engage in negotiations, United States too has its own set of motivations for entering into talks.:

Iran’s Weakness and Regional Decline

Iran’s diminished regional influence, compounded by a severe economic crisis, presents what Trump sees as a strategic opportunity to reach an agreement. In his view, Iran may be compelled to make significant and unprecedented concessions due to its waning regional hegemony and its fear of a direct military confrontation with the United States—a scenario that could potentially lead to internal collapse of the Iranian regime.

Avoiding Risk and Escalation

Trump believes that curbing Iranian influence through diplomacy is more realistic and less risky, especially given Iran’s substantial setbacks over the past year and a half. Military intervention, by contrast, could intensify regional crises, expand the scope of conflict, and entangle the United States in another prolonged war in the Middle East—something that contradicts Trump’s repeated claims of being a “man of peace” committed to ending wars.

Economic Opportunity

Trump views Iran not only as a geopolitical challenge but also as a potential economic opportunity worth trillions of dollars. A military solution could cost the United States tens of billions in military spending, while risking higher oil prices and global economic instability. If Iran is sufficiently weakened and willing to accept constraints in the military, political, and nuclear spheres—as well as limit its regional influence—this opens the door to significant U.S. investments. This perspective may explain why the current talks are limited to the U.S. and Iran, deliberately excluding European, Russian, and Chinese participation. Should Trump’s plan succeed, the United States would claim the lion’s share of investment opportunities in Iran, leaving little room for rival powers.

Pulling Iran Away from China and Russia

A successful agreement would likely draw Iran away from the Sino-Russian axis. This would represent a major strategic setback for both China and Russia, as Iran remains the only Middle Eastern power closely aligned with them and openly hostile to the United States and its allies.

Focusing on the China Challenge

A weakened and non-disruptive Iran—especially one engaged economically with the U.S.—would allow Washington to shift its strategic focus toward countering China’s growing influence in East Asia, rather than remaining mired in Middle Eastern conflicts.

These reasons led Trump to initially pursue talks and attempt diplomatic solutions rather than resorting to military action.

What About Israel?

It is clear that Israel has become the central player in the regional equation following the events of October 7, 2023. Iran’s growing vulnerability and its eventual compulsion to enter negotiations with the Trump administration—and Trump’s ability to pressure Iran into doing so—are primarily the result of Israeli military strikes against the Iranian axis, both in the region and within Iran itself, over the past year and a half. In other words, if the Trump administration succeeds in securing an agreement with Iran that serves U.S. interests and is framed as a political victory, much of the credit would be due to Israel’s actions on the ground.

However, it is important to recognize that American and Israeli interests may not fully align regarding the objectives and potential outcomes of these negotiations. For example, an agreement in which Iran reduces or halts its uranium enrichment program—alongside the establishment of economic ties with the United States—may advance U.S. strategic interests by de-escalating tensions. Yet such an agreement could pose a long-term threat to Israel, particularly if it enables Iran to regain economic strength and political legitimacy while continuing to expand its regional influence and support proxy groups hostile to Israel.

The threat Iran poses to Israel extends far beyond its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The real and immediate danger stems from Iran’s regional influence and the destabilizing actions of its proxy militias. The events of October 7, 2023, illustrate this point clearly: the threat did not come from Iran’s nuclear capabilities or direct military actions, but rather from its network of armed proxies and its ideological influence across the region. In contrast, the threat Iran poses to American interests may be more narrowly defined and limited in scope. Moreover, the Iranian regime’s religious and ideological rhetoric against Israel continues to resonate with large segments of the population in the region, posing a more intangible yet powerful threat that does not necessarily apply to U.S. interests. For these reasons, Israel must have a meaningful voice in any U.S.-Iran negotiations—especially since these talks have emerged as a result of conditions shaped largely by Israeli actions, and their consequences will likely affect Israel more directly than the United States.

In short, based on the logic of power, the logic of politics, and the power of logic, these negotiations must prioritize Israeli interests first and foremost—followed by those of the United States. Otherwise, Israel will have no choice but to safeguard its own security and future through independent decisions and actions, even if that means undermining or contributing to the failure of U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Especially since Israel is fully aware that the current conditions—Iran’s weakness, the collapse of its regional axis, Trump’s presidency, and favorable international and regional dynamics—represent a rare, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to strike Iran internally