At the heart of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East lies an unsettling contradiction.
On the one hand, he is arriving with a formidable economic delegation, prominent business leaders in tow, to broker trade agreements, secure investments, and deepen cooperation in critical sectors like artificial intelligence and defence. On the surface, it is a mission of economic promise and strategic alignment, a vision of progress and mutual gain.
Yet, on the other hand, the ruthless war on Gaza continues with no hope of a possible ceasefire or humanitarian aid to reach the starving Palestinians.
The dissonance is impossible to ignore.
In Tehran, the optics of the visit have not gone unnoticed. For Iranian officials, the spectacle is both striking and revealing, as it lays bare the limits of Trump’s influence over Netanyahu. Had he had the power, Trump might have preferred to arrive with at least a temporary truce in hand, perhaps accompanied by a carefully staged humanitarian gesture. His inability to do so suggests either a startling lack of leverage or a deliberate choice not to wield it.
Ambiguity lingers at the core of the US position, some might argue by design. While Trump hinted that a cessation of violence was within reach, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee simultaneously reaffirmed unwavering support for Israel’s hardline stance. The result is a dual narrative: one aimed at placating Arab partners with the illusion of American mediation, the other reassuring Tel Aviv of Washington’s unconditional allegiance to its security imperatives.
In the days preceding Trump’s arrival in the region, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on a diplomatic tour and meetings with officials in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A senior reformist figure within Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s inner circle told Al-Ahram Weekly that during these discussions Araghchi had shared key updates on the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Washington in talks facilitated by Oman.
Araghchi assured his Gulf counterparts that Tehran was engaging in the dialogue with sincerity, seeking not only to revive the nuclear accord and secure sanctions relief but also to ease regional tensions. Yet, he made it clear that Iran’s concessions had limits.
“We will not compromise at any price,” he emphasised. Tehran, he insisted, maintains its right to enrich uranium on its own soil under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), dismissing US demands to cease domestic enrichment as both non-negotiable and a violation of Iran’s internationally recognised rights.
According to the Iranian official, Riyadh and Doha responded with cautious optimism to these views, expressing the hope that an agreement between Washington and Tehran could indeed be reached and one that might finally temper long-standing hostilities.
Iran has been deepening its coordination with regional actors to ease tensions and contain Israel’s escalating aggression. From Yemen to Iraq and Lebanon, Tehran has engaged in discreet diplomacy, urging restraint among its allies in a strategy that appears to be yielding quiet but tangible results.
Just days ago, in an unexpected shift Trump announced that Houthi forces in Yemen would cease their attacks on American vessels in the Red Sea, with the US reciprocating by halting its strikes on Yemen. The move was met with approval across the region, where leaders have long emphasised the imperative of safeguarding international trade and maritime security.
Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Hizbullah has steadfastly refused to escalate hostilities despite persistent Israeli provocations. Similarly, in Iraq Tehran’s allies have upheld their commitment to avoid targeting US bases and to halt missile and drone launches towards Israel.
Taken together, these developments send a clear signal: Iran is positioning itself not as a disruptor, but as a force for regional stability. They also underscore a broader truth – that Washington’s attempts to partition the Middle East into rival blocs, pitting a so-called “moderate axis” against an “Iranian axis,” are ultimately unsustainable.
“True equilibrium in the region cannot be engineered through division. It requires engagement and pragmatism,” the Iranian official argued.
CRUCIAL TEST: Trump’s visit to the region will serve as a crucial test for these delicate geopolitical equations.
While the trip is expected to yield significant agreements spanning real-estate investments, energy partnerships, semiconductor collaborations, artificial intelligence ventures, and enhanced military cooperation, one of the most sensitive items on the agenda remains Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear aspirations.
At the heart of this diplomatic tightrope walk lies Riyadh’s persistent request for US cooperation in establishing a domestic nuclear programme complete with uranium enrichment capabilities under IAEA supervision. This proposition has predictably drawn Israeli objections, with Israeli officials insisting such discussions be contingent upon normalisation between the two states.
Israel maintains particular reservations about permitting uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, even with international oversight.
The Saudi position remains unequivocal: Riyadh views its nuclear ambitions as entirely separate from any normalisation process with Israel, which it maintains can only occur within the context of a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians including a two-state solution. This diplomatic standoff presents the Trump administration with a formidable challenge in balancing these competing interests.
Tehran will be watching the talks in Riyadh with particular interest. Iranian sources have indicated that any US approval of Saudi enrichment activities would fundamentally undermine Washington’s objections to Iran’s own nuclear programme. Iran has expressed its willingness to return to the modest 3.5 per cent enrichment levels established under the 2015 Obama-era agreement – a clear effort to demonstrate its peaceful intentions, as such low-grade enrichment falls far short of weapons-grade requirements.
Araghchi announced that the fourth round of nuclear talks with Washington had been “more serious and detailed” than previous rounds, a sentiment echoed by Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, who praised the inclusion of “constructive and innovative proposals” in the talks.
Speaking to Iranian state television, Araghchi struck a cautiously optimistic note, confirming that the discussions are progressing with a mutual commitment to continue the dialogue.
“There is now a clearer understanding between the two sides,” he observed, while firmly reiterating Tehran’s red line that “our right to uranium enrichment remains non-negotiable.” However, he signalled flexibility on technical aspects, noting that “while the principle of enrichment is inviolable, the scope and levels can be addressed.”
Looking ahead, Araghchi anticipated the next round of talks to convene within a week, though he urged Washington to avoid “contradictory statements that could undermine the negotiation process.” At the heart of Iran’s position, he emphasised, remains the lifting of sanctions, an objective he described as “a shared priority recognised by both parties.”
Al-Busaidi, whose country has played a pivotal mediating role, reinforced this measured optimism. He highlighted the introduction of “practical and forward-looking ideas” during the discussions, reflecting what he called “a mutual commitment to achieving a dignified agreement.”
He added that the fifth round would follow further consultations with the respective leaderships, suggesting careful deliberation before the next diplomatic engagement. The remarks from both officials point to a potential thaw in the protracted standoff, though the path forward remains delicately balanced.
NO BREAKTHROUGH: It is increasingly evident that Trump’s regional tour will not yield a breakthrough in the catastrophic crisis unfolding in Gaza.
Even the prospect of a brief humanitarian pause, such as a temporary truce of a few days to facilitate the delivery of aid during his visit, was rejected by Israel, which sees no strategic benefit in such a move.
As a result, the only potential diplomatic achievement that can be salvaged from the visit lies in broader regional de-escalation: talks with Tehran, tentative understandings on a ceasefire with the Houthis, and assurances regarding the security of navigation in the Red Sea. These may be presented as modest victories, offering face-saving optics for all parties involved.
Yet the underlying reality remains one of extreme volatility. Fears persist that once Trump departs, Israel will intensify its military operations in Gaza, advancing a deeply alarming plan to corral nearly two million Palestinians into four heavily monitored “security zones” in the southern part of the Strip.
Under this scheme, US firms would be tasked with distributing humanitarian aid within these designated areas – zones portrayed by Israel as “safe,” but essentially designed to isolate civilians while enabling the continued pursuit of Hamas fighters.
The plan is cloaked in ambiguity, and crucial questions remain unanswered: how will the mass transfer of civilians, many of them sick, wounded, the elderly, or children, from the north to the south of the Strip be conducted? How will combatants be distinguished from non-combatants? When will aid reach those who need it, especially as starvation claims lives each day?
Is the plan truly about neutralising Hamas, or does it serve as a prelude to large-scale forced displacement? And, if so, does this mark the effective collapse of ceasefire and truce negotiations?
With so much uncertainty and no clarity of vision, Trump’s visit risks being reduced to a commercial and economic one and an exercise in symbolic diplomacy that fails to confront the gravity of the political and security crises engulfing the region.
Such a vacuum could unravel the fragile understandings that have been recently brokered. If Israel persists or escalates its operations in Gaza, the Houthis are likely to resume their attacks, jeopardising any ceasefire arrangements with the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, the already tenuous nuclear negotiations with Iran could suffer a serious setback.
Within both the Trump administration and the Israeli government, where figures such as Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Israel Katz lead a hardline faction, there are hawks eager to see the nuclear talks fail, viewing this as a pretext for a potential military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Tehran fully grasps the delicacy of the current moment and the broader geopolitical fragility unfolding amid what many see as acts of genocide against the Palestinian people.
In this volatile environment, confidence in the Trump administration is scarce. Its positions shift with the winds, further deepening mistrust and uncertainty in a region already on the brink.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: