Once again, an American president reaches toward a nuclear adversary with the promise of transformation through direct engagement — this time turning from Pyongyang to Tehran. Trump's North Korea diplomacy, marked by summits and soaring rhetoric, ultimately left the peninsula's nuclear reality unchanged. Now, with Iran's program more advanced and the regional stakes considerably higher, the administration is testing whether the same instinct for the dramatic gesture can produce the concrete results it never secured before. History does not repeat itself, but it does ask whether we have been pa
Trump Seeks Kim Jong-un's Help on Iran Nuclear Talks
The talks eventually collapsed, and Trump walked away.
Mark
Why would Trump try the same diplomatic approach with Iran if it didn't work with North Korea?
Mimi
Because he sees the personal relationship and direct engagement as the key variable. He believes his negotiating skill can overcome structural problems that defeated other administrations.
Mark
But what changed between 2019 and now that would make Iran negotiations different?
Mimi
Honestly, it's unclear. The administration hasn't articulated new verification mechanisms or different red lines. It seems to be betting on the same formula.
Mark
What's the actual risk if these talks fail?
Mimi
With North Korea, failure meant a frozen conflict. With Iran, it could mean regional escalation, emboldened hardliners, and a message to other countries that American diplomatic commitments are unreliable.
Mark
Does Iran have any incentive to negotiate seriously this time?
Mimi
That depends on whether sanctions relief or other concessions are on the table. But Iran also learned from watching the North Korea talks collapse. They may be skeptical that any deal will hold.
Mark
So we're watching a test of whether Trump learned anything?
Mimi
Exactly. Or whether he's simply repeating a pattern because it's the only tool he trusts.
The Pulse
- Iran's nuclear program has advanced well beyond where North Korea stood when Trump first attempted his summit diplomacy, compressing the timeline for any meaningful agreement.
- The memory of three Kim Jong-un summits that produced no disarmament, no verification, and no lasting framework haunts every early move toward Tehran.
- The administration is exploring direct presidential engagement with Iran, betting that the same bold personal diplomacy can unlock a relationship frozen in hostility for decades.
- Structural obstacles — Iran's regional proxies, its NPT obligations, and the unresolved gap between public promises and deliverable concessions — threaten to stall talks before they gain traction.
- A collapse in Iran negotiations carries consequences far heavier than the Korean stalemate: a destabilized Middle East, emboldened hardliners in Tehran, and a diminished American credibility for any future diplomatic effort in the region.
Once again, an American president reaches toward a nuclear adversary with the promise of transformation through direct engagement — this time turning from Pyongyang to Tehran. Trump's North Korea diplomacy, marked by summits and soaring rhetoric, ultimately left the peninsula's nuclear reality unchanged. Now, with Iran's program more advanced and the regional stakes considerably higher, the administration is testing whether the same instinct for the dramatic gesture can produce the concrete results it never secured before. History does not repeat itself, but it does ask whether we have been paying attention.
President Trump is weighing whether the diplomatic approach he used with North Korea might now be applied to Iran — a parallel that strikes many observers as both intuitive and deeply cautionary. Seven years ago, he pursued direct engagement with Kim Jong-un across three summits, generating historic atmospherics and promises of transformation. When the talks collapsed over sanctions relief and the scope of denuclearization, North Korea's arsenal remained intact and no verification mechanisms had ever been established. Trump disengaged rather than negotiate through the impasse.
Now, with Iran's nuclear capabilities expanding and its regional influence deepening, the administration is exploring a similar playbook: direct presidential engagement, the promise of a deal, the possibility of thawing a relationship frozen in hostility for generations. The logic is familiar. So are the risks.
Iran presents structural challenges that differ from — and in some ways exceed — those of the Korean case. Its nuclear program is more advanced. Its network of regional allies and proxies complicates any bilateral negotiation. And as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran operates within a legal framework that creates both obligations and leverage points absent from the Korean context.
What remains unresolved is whether the administration has developed genuinely new tools, or whether it is returning to a performance that did not yield results the first time. Will there be independent verification? What happens if Iran, like North Korea, agrees to talks but stretches negotiations indefinitely? Diplomatic observers warn that the consequences of failure are not symmetrical: a stalled Korea negotiation left the peninsula tense but stable, while a collapsed Iran deal could further destabilize the Middle East and harden the hand of Tehran's hardliners for years to come.
The coming weeks will reveal whether Trump approaches Iran as a genuine course correction — or simply as a new stage for the same act.
President Trump is considering whether the diplomatic playbook he used with North Korea seven years ago might work better with Iran. The parallel is striking, and troubling to some observers: back then, he pursued direct engagement with Kim Jong-un, held summits, and spoke of historic breakthroughs. But when the dust settled, North Korea's nuclear arsenal remained intact. No meaningful disarmament occurred. The talks eventually collapsed, and Trump walked away.
Now, as tensions simmer over Iran's nuclear program and its expanding regional influence, the administration is exploring a similar approach to Tehran. The logic is familiar: direct presidential engagement, the promise of a deal, the possibility of transforming a relationship that has been frozen in hostility for decades. But the question hanging over these early moves is whether Trump has learned from what happened before, or whether he is about to repeat the same pattern with different actors and higher stakes.
The North Korea experience offers a cautionary template. Trump came to office convinced he could succeed where his predecessors had failed. He met with Kim Jong-un three times between 2018 and 2019. The rhetoric was warm, the atmospherics were carefully managed, and for a moment it seemed as though something fundamental might shift. But the negotiations never produced the concrete results Trump had promised. North Korea did not disarm. Verification mechanisms were never established. When the talks stalled over sanctions relief and the scope of denuclearization, Trump chose to disengage rather than negotiate through the impasse.
Iran presents a different set of challenges but similar structural problems. The country's nuclear program is more advanced than North Korea's was in 2018. Iran has regional allies and proxies that complicate any bilateral negotiation. And unlike North Korea, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which creates both obligations and leverage points that did not exist in the Korean case.
What remains unclear is whether the administration has developed new tools or strategies to overcome the obstacles that derailed the North Korea talks. Will there be independent verification of any agreement? What happens if Iran, like North Korea, agrees to talks but drags out negotiations indefinitely? How will the administration handle the gap between what it promises publicly and what it can actually deliver?
Diplomatic observers note that the stakes are different this time. A failed negotiation with North Korea left the peninsula tense but relatively stable. A failed negotiation with Iran could destabilize the Middle East further, embolden hardliners in Tehran, and undermine the credibility of any future American diplomatic overtures in the region. The administration's willingness to try the same approach twice suggests either confidence born of new insights, or a tendency to repeat strategies that have already proven insufficient.
The coming weeks will reveal whether Trump views the Iran opportunity as a chance to correct course, or simply as another stage for the same performance that did not yield results before.
Notable Quotes
Trump came to office convinced he could succeed where his predecessors had failed— reporting
Want the full story?
Read the original at The New York Times ↗
Politics & Governance