Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
The Iranian nuclear file has once again moved to the forefront of international tensions, following a sharp warning from U.S. President Donald Trump, who threatened Iran with “very painful” consequences if it fails to reach an agreement over its nuclear program. At the same time, Trump expressed hope that a breakthrough could be achieved within the next month.
The remarks signal a renewed push by Washington to reshape the negotiating track with the Islamic Republic, as diplomatic pressure intensifies alongside implicit warnings of tougher economic or political measures. The administration appears to be balancing coercive rhetoric with a limited window for diplomacy, underscoring both urgency and uncertainty in the current phase of talks.
On the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Trump believes he is creating the conditions that could lead to a “good deal” with Tehran. However, Netanyahu made clear that he remains skeptical about the prospects of any agreement that would effectively and permanently curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Netanyahu’s visit to Washington where he held his seventh meeting with Trump since the U.S. president returned to office, highlights the close coordination between the two allies on Iran policy. Israel has consistently advocated for a more hardline approach, arguing that Iran’s nuclear program poses a direct and existential threat to its national security. While Washington has not ruled out diplomacy, Israeli officials continue to question whether negotiated constraints can sufficiently eliminate long-term risks.
Complicating the political dimension are significant technical and verification challenges. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that reaching an agreement with Iran on inspections related to its nuclear activities is “entirely possible but extremely difficult.”
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Grossi noted that the UN watchdog had returned to Iran following the June conflict in which Israel launched strikes and the United States participated. Inspectors were able to examine most sites, he said, except for those that had been bombed. His comments underscore the fragile and complex nature of oversight arrangements, particularly in a post-conflict environment where access, transparency, and technical verification remain sensitive issues.
The current standoff revives a longstanding dilemma in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: whether to pursue a negotiated agreement that limits enrichment and enhances monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief, or to apply maximum pressure in hopes of extracting broader concessions. Trump’s renewed warning suggests a strategy that combines both approaches, maintaining the threat of significant consequences while leaving room for a negotiated settlement within a defined timeframe.
For Israel, the central concern remains the durability and enforceability of any deal. Netanyahu’s public skepticism reflects fears that an agreement lacking stringent, long-term restrictions and intrusive inspection mechanisms could allow Iran to preserve or eventually rebuild sensitive nuclear capabilities.
For Tehran, meanwhile, the challenge lies in navigating between avoiding direct military confrontation and preserving bargaining leverage under ongoing economic sanctions and domestic pressures. Iran’s negotiating posture is likely shaped by calculations about regional stability, economic resilience, and the credibility of U.S. commitments.
As the diplomatic clock ticks toward the one-month timeframe suggested by Trump, the stakes appear high. The coming weeks could determine whether the parties edge toward a constrained diplomatic breakthrough, however fragile or slide into a renewed cycle of escalation in one of the Middle East’s most persistent and volatile crises.
