Trump’s Iran Nuclear Curiosity Raises Stakes in Global Diplomacy

US President Donald Trump’s focus on Iran’s nuclear programme is becoming a central tension point in international diplomacy, as top American officials express puzzlement and frustration at Tehran’s resistance to fully curb uranium enrichment despite heavy US pressure. Some advisors say Trump is genuinely curious why Iran has not capitulated to Washington’s demands, even as diplomatic talks continue and the threat of military action looms.

At the heart of the matter is Iran’s nuclear programme, which Western powers view as potentially leading to a weaponised capability. Trump’s administration has repeatedly insisted that Tehran should spill its enriched uranium stock and halt enrichment that could one day be used to make a bomb. However, Iran maintains its programme is peaceful and tied to energy needs, and has resisted calls to fully shut down enrichment.

Iran has even offered to dilute some of its enriched uranium or move portions abroad under international supervision, but it stops short of agreeing to complete relinquishment of enrichment rights. Diplomatic channels remain open. Iranian and US envoys have been engaging in indirect negotiations, with the next round planned in Geneva as both sides try to find common ground. The talks are facilitated by Oman and aim to prevent further escalation.

Meanwhile, Trump’s curiosity about Iran’s approach underscores a deeper strategic question in Washington: why the Iranian leadership persists with enrichment activities even when the US military and economic sanctions are strongly applied. Why haven’t they capitulated, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly asked, reflecting wider US concerns that Tehran’s position may not change easily despite mounting pressure.

Adding to the complexity are domestic tensions within Iran itself. Recently protests have broken out at universities and cities across the country, adding internal pressure on the regime. These demonstrations are partly fueled by economic frustrations and political dissatisfaction, which could influence Tehran’s negotiating posture.

Notably, Trump’s administration appears to be mulling more flexible options as well, reports suggest Washington could consider allowing Iran limited token enrichment if it can be guaranteed that no pathway to a bomb exists. Such proposals, however, are controversial among hardliners in both countries.

Whether Trump’s curiosity will translate into a breakthrough or only deepen mistrust remains unclear. For now, both sides are keeping diplomatic doors open, even as military and economic pressures linger. This delicate balance between negotiation and confrontation continues to shape global geopolitics around one of the most enduring and contentious foreign policy puzzles of the modern era.