In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed between Iran and major world powers, including the US, with the aim of limiting Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. When President Donald Trump walked away from the deal in 2018, many critics warned it could increase tensions, isolate the US and accelerate Iran’s path to a bomb.

But now, in his second presidential term, Trump is pursuing something much more ambitious than a return to the status quo. He is not seeking a revised version of the JCPOA, he is demanding that Tehran dismantle its nuclear program entirely.

This is not a return to diplomacy as usual. It is a maximalist approach, one that leaves no room for compromise on key nuclear issues and calls for the complete removal of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium domestically. In doing so, Trump is signaling that any deal must not only delay Iran’s path to a weapon but eliminate it altogether. This new stance marks a sharp contrast from Barack Obama’s deal, which was built on restrictions, monitoring and phased trust-building.

The JCPOA allowed Tehran to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, while imposing strict limits on uranium enrichment, stockpile size and centrifuge use. It also created a robust inspections regime led by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The deal’s sunset clauses were its fatal flaw, since they allowed Iran to expand its nuclear capabilities after a decade or so. Furthermore, the agreement did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its regional aggression through terror proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis.

By contrast, Trump’s new position is uncompromising. In recent remarks, he confirmed that the only acceptable outcome is “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program: no enrichment, no centrifuges, no domestic capabilities. The Trump administration is reportedly offering Tehran the chance to purchase enriched uranium from external sources, possibly even from the US, as part of a plan to eliminate the infrastructure that allows it to pursue a bomb in secret.

This demand goes far beyond the JCPOA. In fact, it is more ambitious than any prior US negotiating position with Tehran. It suggests not just containment but complete rollback. It is the nuclear equivalent of regime change, only through facilities and capability, not leadership.

The White House is also extending its demands to other areas: Iran’s ballistic missile program, its terror financing networks, its proxy operations across the Middle East and its human rights abuses at home. It is, in essence, seeking a grand bargain in which Iran not only gives up its nuclear future but also abandons its revolutionary ideology.

Naturally, Tehran has rejected these demands, both publicly and privately. Iranian leaders have made clear that they view enrichment as a national right and that dismantling their facilities would mean surrendering to foreign pressure.

In addition to its challenging demands, the Trump team is also using indirect diplomacy. Talks have reportedly taken place in neutral locations like Oman and Rome, where American and Iranian negotiators have passed messages through intermediaries. Washington has made clear that sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization are on the table, but only if Tehran agrees to irreversible steps.

The negotiations are delicate and opinions within Trump’s own circle are divided. Former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz favored a hard-line position, while other advisers, like Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, are exploring pathways to achieve results without military escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has taken a firm stance, insisting that any deal must be comprehensive and enforceable.

Meanwhile, international partners are watching closely. European leaders, particularly in France and Germany, have expressed skepticism over whether Trump’s terms are realistic. They agree that the JCPOA was imperfect but many still believe diplomacy must include give and take.

Still, Trump’s strategy has its logic. The old deal bought time; it did not solve the problem. Tehran was still enriching uranium. It was still building missiles. It was still funding terrorism. The president’s view is that half measures only give Iran space to regroup and resume its dangerous behavior. By contrast, demanding total dismantlement ensures that Iran will have no path, short-term or long-term, to a nuclear bomb.

A deal based on strength, not compromise, is more likely to prevent war and Tehran always responds to pressure, not appeasement.

Ultimately, this is about more than enrichment levels and centrifuge models. It is about a better and safer Middle East, which we all want to see.

Whether you like him or not, Trump has made his choice, a bold and clever one. He walked away from a deal that he believed was weak and is now demanding one that could change the game entirely.