Trump Says Iran Agreement Possible Ahead of China Visit
Trump says a Trump-Iran agreement is possible before his China trip, dismisses envoys leading talks and proposes transferring Iranian uranium to the U.S.
President Donald Trump said an agreement with Iran is “possible” and suggested it could be finalised before his upcoming trip to China, raising prospects for a high-stakes diplomatic close to months of tensions. The president used an interview with PBS to outline his belief that a Trump Iran agreement could be completed domestically, while reserving the option of a ceremonial signing abroad. He also told the network that sending envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to run talks was unlikely, and sketched a controversial provision involving the transfer of Iranian uranium to the United States.
Administration’s public stance on negotiations
Trump framed the talks as achievable through direct administration involvement rather than through special emissaries, saying senior aides need not be dispatched to Tehran for the bulk of discussions. He described the possibility of conducting most negotiations in Washington and only travelling for a final signing ceremony if necessary. The president’s remarks signalled an intent to centralise control of any deal and to present a finished agreement as a diplomatic outcome tied to his schedule.
Envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff sidelined
The president explicitly downplayed the idea of delegating negotiation leadership to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, calling that scenario “unlikely.” Kushner, a senior White House adviser, has been involved in other regional initiatives but was described by Trump as not being the administration’s primary agent for Iran diplomacy. The mention of Steve Witkoff, a private-sector figure not known for formal diplomatic postings, underscored the administration’s preference for keeping negotiations within the executive’s immediate circle.
Proposal to move Iranian uranium to the United States
Among the proposals Trump raised was the idea of transferring Iranian uranium out of Iran and into U.S. custody as part of a new agreement framework. The president presented the measure as a way to reduce Tehran’s capacity to develop nuclear materials domestically, describing it as a security safeguard built into negotiations. The concept would represent a substantial logistical and legal undertaking, touching on sensitive non-proliferation, transportation and sovereignty issues.
Threat of military action if talks fail
While expressing optimism about reaching a deal, Trump warned that failure to secure an agreement could prompt a return to forceful military measures, saying the alternative would be “bombing them very, very hard.” His comments combined a diplomatic overture with a clear threat of escalation, reflecting the dual-track approach the administration has applied to Iran policy. Analysts say such rhetoric can pressure counterparts but also risks undermining trust if military options are foregrounded during negotiation phases.
Timing tied to China visit and diplomatic optics
Trump repeatedly linked the possible timing of an agreement to his scheduled visit to China, suggesting a ceremonial signing could take place during the trip to underscore its international significance. Using a major bilateral visit as a backdrop for a diplomatic announcement would aim to maximise global attention and present the deal as a presidential achievement. Diplomats caution, however, that tying complex negotiations to a fixed trip calendar can compress timelines and complicate technical verification steps required for any nuclear-related accord.
Regional and international implications
A deal that included moving Iranian uranium to the United States would have ripple effects across the Middle East, affecting regional security calculations and nuclear oversight mechanisms. Gulf states, Israel and European partners would all scrutinise the mechanics of such a transfer and its verification safeguards, while the International Atomic Energy Agency would be central to monitoring compliance. Observers say the combination of a U.S.-centred custody arrangement and strong military rhetoric could be polarising for partners who prefer multilateral, rules-based approaches.
The president’s comments, delivered on a major public platform, will likely spur urgent consultations within diplomatic and defence circles as officials weigh negotiation strategy, inspection regimes and contingency planning. Any movement toward a concrete Trump Iran agreement will require careful legal, logistical and political work to reconcile national security goals with international obligations and regional stability.