In his most direct overture toward Tehran since returning to office, U.S. President Donald Trump declared in an interview with TIME Magazine that he is willing to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Masoud Pezeshkian to pursue a new nuclear agreement.
His statement marks a striking shift in tone, underscoring both a diplomatic opening and a readiness for confrontation should negotiations collapse. “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran,” Trump said in the April 22 interview, expressing guarded confidence in the outcome of recent U.S.-Iran indirect negotiations. Asked whether he would sit down with Khamenei or Pezeshkian, Trump responded simply, “Sure,” indicating an openness to break precedent and directly engage with Iran’s highest leadership.
The remark, as reported by Al-Monitor, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal, comes as expert-level nuclear discussions resume this weekend in Oman, with a third round of high-level talks expected soon after.The negotiations aim to build a framework that could limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. In parallel, the Trump administration is floating a compromise under which Iran would be allowed a civilian nuclear energy program provided it relies solely on imported fuel—a model similar to the approach used by the United Arab Emirates.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that such a deal would bar Iran from enriching uranium on its own soil while allowing it to operate nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. “If Iran wants a civil nuclear program, they can have one just like many other countries,” Rubio said in an interview with The Free Press, reiterating the requirement that enriched uranium be sourced from outside. However, Tehran has shown resistance to this condition. Senior Iranian official Ali Shamkhani dismissed the “U.A.E. model” during earlier talks in Rome, signaling deep distrust of Western guarantees and a reluctance to depend on foreign fuel sources.
The Wall Street Journal noted that Iran’s nuclear program has expanded significantly since Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% purity—the highest ever by a non-nuclear weapons state—bringing it perilously close to weapons-grade levels. Despite the tensions, Tehran recently allowed a technical team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit the country, following sharp criticism for its lack of transparency. According to IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, the visit is meant to facilitate the replacement of key monitoring equipment, which could signal a tentative willingness to cooperate amid renewed diplomatic activity. Still, Grossi confirmed that Iran has not slowed the pace of its enrichment activities, reinforcing Western fears of nuclear breakout capability.
Trump’s remarks also intersect with a complex geopolitical backdrop involving Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and views Tehran’s program as an existential threat. While Trump denied media reports suggesting he blocked Israeli military action against Iranian sites, he clarified that he discouraged immediate escalation in favor of diplomacy. “I didn’t stop them. But I didn’t make it comfortable for them,” he told TIME. Yet he left the door open for a military solution: “If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”
Critics and observers have noted that Trump’s comments reflect a policy of maximum pressure combined with limited engagement—a model that dominated his first term and one he appears eager to revisit. When asked if he feared being dragged into a conflict by Israel, Trump rejected the premise. “He [Netanyahu] may go into a war. But we’re not getting dragged in… I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal,” he said, drawing a clear distinction between reactive entanglement and proactive force.
The stakes are further heightened by Trump’s broader Middle East strategy. The president is planning a regional tour next month with visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. He claims that Riyadh has committed to investing $1 trillion in the U.S. economy and suggests that Saudi Arabia is ready to join the Abraham Accords—an initiative that normalized Israel’s relations with several Arab states during his previous administration. “We would have had it packed,” Trump said of the accords. “Now we’re going to start it again.”
He also used the interview to criticize former President Joe Biden, blaming his administration for Iran’s resurgence. Trump argued that his own sanctions had crippled Iran’s economy, thereby curbing its support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. “Iran was broke under Trump,” he said. “When Biden came and he took off all the sanctions… Iran developed $300 billion in cash over a four-year period. They started funding terror again.”
This rhetoric coincides with a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. When pressed by TIME about responsibility for the deaths of over 300 children and injuries to hundreds more since the ceasefire broke down, Trump shifted blame onto Biden, contending that the current administration’s policies enabled Iran to finance its proxies anew. As negotiations resume and pressure mounts on all sides, the next few weeks may prove decisive. Trump’s rare overture to meet Iran’s supreme leader, combined with stark warnings of war, defines the dual-edged nature of his diplomatic strategy—one rooted in transactional pragmatism but fortified by threats of overwhelming force.
Whether Iran will accept a deal that limits its enrichment capability or drive the standoff toward escalation remains to be seen, but the moment is charged with both peril and potential.
