A new development in the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran has emerged, with US media outlets reporting that former President Donald Trump is actively seeking to alter the terms of the proposed deal. While the details remain sketchy, the story, broken by multiple outlets, suggests that Trump has been in contact with intermediaries to insert his own stipulations into the agreement currently being finalised by the Biden administration.
This intervention, if confirmed, would inject a volatile variable into a process that has been painstakingly reconstructed after the 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Trump unilaterally abandoned that pact, citing its failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile programme and regional activities. Now, reports indicate he is trying to reshape the new deal to align closer with his original demands: stricter limits on uranium enrichment, snapback mechanisms without United Nations Security Council approval, and expanded inspections of military sites.
The science of nuclear non-proliferation is unforgiving. Every gram of enriched uranium is a physical constraint on breakout time, the period Tehran would need to weaponise fuel. The original JCPOA forced Iran to reduce its stockpile to 300 kilograms of 3.67% enriched uranium, extending breakout time to over a year. Since 2019, Iran has breached those limits, now holding more than 5,000 kilograms of enriched material, some at 60% purity, which is just steps away from weapons-grade. The physics is not negotiable: that stockpile reduces breakout time to perhaps weeks.
Climate and energy transitions may seem unrelated, but they are deeply tied. Iran’s nuclear programme is a byproduct of its energy needs. The country sits on vast fossil fuel reserves yet suffers chronic electricity shortages due to sanctions and inefficiency. Any future deal will need to address energy cooperation, potentially opening the door for renewable projects that could reduce reliance on enriched uranium as a bargaining chip. The paradox is that clean energy infrastructure requires stable geopolitics, which nuclear talks aim to provide.
Critics on both sides have questioned the legitimacy of Trump’s reported meddling. Legal experts point out that while a former president holds no formal role in foreign policy, backchannel communications are not unheard of. However, such actions risk undermining the official negotiating team and could fracture the fragile trust needed to conclude the deal. Iran has publicly stated that it will not renegotiate terms already agreed upon in principle. A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry reiterated on Tuesday that “the current text represents a balanced outcome and any further alterations are unacceptable.”
Supporters of Trump’s involvement argue that his original approach applied maximum pressure, which brought Iran to the table in the first place. They claim that the new deal may be too lenient, failing to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or address missile development. Scientific reality suggests that full dismantlement is a fantasy: enrichment centrifuges are like knowledge, once acquired, they cannot be un-invented. Verification and robust monitoring are the only realistic paths.
The Biden administration has declined to comment on the reports, with a State Department spokesperson stating only that “negotiations are ongoing and we are focused on reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.” Meanwhile, global oil markets have reacted cautiously, with Brent crude edging up on uncertainty. Energy traders know that a collapsed negotiation could trigger sanctions snapback, removing Iranian oil from the market and spiking prices, which would in turn slow the global energy transition by making renewables comparatively more expensive.
The coming days will be critical. If Trump’s reported edits gain traction, the entire framework could collapse. But if the current negotiations hold, a new agreement could be signed within weeks. Either way, the physical constraints of enrichment and the relentless pressures of climate change will ensure that this story has no easy ending. The planet is warming, and diplomatic inertia only accelerates the damage.
