Iran International
US President Donald Trump's letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei urging nuclear talks may represent a bid to engage directly with the country's veteran strongman and cut out technocrats who shepherded a previous agreement.
"The main aim was to directly engage the Supreme leader because normally these negotiations take place between ministers or senior officials," said Kamran Matin, a senior lecturer in International Relations at Sussex University, "The Americans know who's wielding the actual power in Iran."
Trump announced he had sent the letter in an interview which aired on Sunday. While he did not disclose its contents, the White House confirmed he was inviting Iran to negotiate on its nuclear program.
"There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal," Trump had told Fox Business. "I would prefer to make a deal, because I'm not looking to hurt Iran."
Tehran denies seeking a nuclear weapon but has rapidly stepped up nuclear enrichment in recent years and now its stockpile could in principle be refined further into six atomic bombs, according to the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
Just a day after Trump had revealed his letter gambit, Khamenei delivered another speech rejecting the idea of US talks, fulminating that Tehran will not be bullied.
On Wednesday the Supreme Leader said Trump's pullout from a 2015 nuclear deal means he cannot be trusted and that Washington would come off worst in any war.
But Khamenei's rhetoric may indicate the door is not yet completely closed , said Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC.
That deal was mostly championed by relative moderates in the Iranian government.
Khamenei's message may lie not so much what he said but what he left out.
"(The Supreme Leader) hasn't said no to talking to Trump forever and ever," said Vatanka, "He hasn't even mentioned the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. And that was supposed to kill the notion of Iran ever talking to Trump again. But we haven't heard anything about Qassem Soleimani in the last sort of signals from Khamanei."
Trump ordered the assassination of Iran's most formidable military commander Qassem Soleimani in a 2019 drone strike in Baghdad, causing Khamenei and other hardliners to seethe and vow revenge.
Trump in his first term had also sought to convey a letter to Khamenei which he refused to even accept.
Letter vs Oral Message
Iran's fortunes are far bleaker now, however, providing more of an opening for talks.
Iran, Vatanka argued, suffered a huge setback with the fall of its greatest Arab ally in Syria, while other proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah were also severely weakened by Israel. US-led sanctions have brought Iran's economy to its knees and threaten unrest.
The US president could have sent an informal message through a third country but chose to send a letter to Khamenei, as his predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden had done previously.
Obama, whom Trump blasted as being too lenient on Iran in the 2015 deal, reached out to Iran's Supreme leader with a direct and secret letter in 2009.
"Sending a message written rather than orally does convey greater diplomatic urgency, greater importance," said Greg Brew, an Iran analyst with the Eurasia Group.
"An official message from the president would carry more weight," he added.
All options means all options
Despite Trump's apparent desire for a diplomatic solution with Iran, he still has maintained a tough stance by reinstating the "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran from his first term.
Trump vowed the alternative to a new deal would be a military intervention.
"American alternative exit options are, such as Israeli or even American military force," said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran Program at the Washington DC-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. "But make no mistake, I think when the president intimates that all options are on the table, all options are on the table."
While showing the world Washington aims for a diplomatic resolution is a good thing, Taleblu said the rift between the Islamic Republic and the Trump administration may be too wide to bridge.
"Realistically today in 2025, there is no real a zone of possible agreement that gives the US everything it needs from a nonproliferation perspective," Taleblu said, "let alone all the lingering non-nuclear issues that exist between the US and Iran.
Outlining the challenges facing policymakers considering such action, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued that such an action would be the opening round of a long campaign built upon decades of covert efforts and will escalate in pace and intensity.
"A preventive attack is unlikely to be a solitary event, but rather the opening round of a long campaign employing military strikes, covert action, as well as economic, informational, and other elements of national power," the report said.
The research, written by Michael Eisenstadt, said that a successful preventive strike against Iran's nuclear program requires: eliminating materials and facilities, enabling covert rebuilding disruption, securing political support, and crafting a post-strike strategy to deter Iran from rebuilding.
However, the threat of military action could prompt Iran to hide materials, complicating future strikes. It also risks pushing Iran to abandon its current nuclear hedging strategy and accelerate weaponization.
Eisenstadt suggested that the preparatory phase has already begun, citing Israel's airstrikes targeting Iranian radar systems in April and October 2024, which weakened air defenses around key nuclear and missile sites.
"A lengthy campaign would be required because key installations associated with Iran’s nuclear program are located at over a half-dozen sites," the report said, noting that some are hardened and buried, making complete destruction unlikely.
According to the research, Israeli leaders view Iran's current vulnerability as an opportunity to degrade its nuclear capabilities. "Many Israelis believe that Iran’s current weakness provides a unique opportunity to destroy, or at least set back, its nuclear program through a military strike".
US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his position that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," expressing readiness for diplomatic engagement but suggesting military action as a last resort. He said there are "two ways of stopping [Iran], with bombs or with a written piece of paper."
The report also warned of Iran’s likely response to a possible attack, saying that it could range from measured retaliations to severe escalation, including potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or further restrictions on the UN nuclear watchdog's operations in the country.
"Tehran might feel a need to respond massively to a preventive strike, although recent setbacks inflicted by Israel on its proxy forces and missile production capability may limit its ability to do so. It could also respond by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors," it added.
In 2023, Iran already banned at least one third of inspectors with the UN's nuclear chief voicing frustration at Iran's intransigence.
Eisenstadt also highlighted Iran's resilience, warning that following a strike, Iran would likely attempt to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, potentially hiding clandestine facilities in civilian areas or deeply buried sites believed to be beyond the reach of Israel or the United States.
"Thus, in the aftermath of a strike, Iran will likely try to rebuild, perhaps hiding small clandestine centrifuge-enrichment and weaponization facilities in plain sight (e.g., in residential areas or civilian industrial parks), or more likely, in hardened, deeply buried facilities which it believes are beyond the reach of Israel or the United States."
It is not the first time experts warn of Iran's resilience. Last month, Sina Azodi, an expert on US-Iran relations, told the Eye for Iran podcast that Iran can easily rebuild nuclear facilities hit by air attacks.
"Once you know how to make a car, it doesn't matter how many times you get into a car accident. You can still rebuild it," he said.
The potential for clandestine rebuilding necessitates "follow-on covert action and military strikes to disrupt and delay efforts to rebuild" in the years following an initial attack, according to the Washington Institute report.
The analysis concluded that if diplomacy fails to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, policymakers must weigh the risks of a nuclear-threshold Iran against military intervention. While a strike risks triggering nuclear proliferation, it may also enable the long-term containment of a weakened Iran, Eisenstadt argued.
He said that fearing a change in its leadership, which US assurances may not alleviate, Iran might retaliate more aggressively and accelerate its nuclear program after a preventive strike.