After three rounds of mediated talks between the U.S. and Iran on resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, the fourth round of U.S.-Iran talks, scheduled to take place on 4 May, had been postponed, according to the Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaid.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and his team members take part in negotiations with the U.S.

in Rome, Italy on 19 April. (Abbas Araqchi/Telegram/WANA/Reuters/CNN).

At the moment, there is no unified and consistent position within the Trump administration regarding what the U.S. government wants to finally reflect in a possible deal with Iran - whether it would seek to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme or allow Iran to keep a minimal level of nuclear capacity for civilian use is uncertain. In the meantime, Israel has been advocating and pushing toward a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear programme, while Iran has been insisting on a different position on this matter.

Reaching a nuclear deal with Iran can be an effective way to help maintain peace and stability in the Middle East region. To move the discussions forward, the parties concerned need to find a common ground by overcoming some of the differences remained in their positions.

It is important for the U.S. officials to have a unified position on what the U.S. would want to finally achieve in the deal. Otherwise, it would be hard to make any realistic progress on the substances of the negotiations.

Apart from that, for reaching a deal with Iran, the U.S. will need to well balance the conflicting positions held by Israel and Iran. For Israel, any possible deal reached between the U.S. and Iran wouldn’t be in the interest of Israel, because from the Israeli perspective, a U.S.-Iran deal would help ease the tension between the U.S. and Iran, and the outcomes out of that scenario would possibly undermine the significance of the U.S.-Israel alliance relationship and pose a threat to Israel’s interests.

So, what Israel fears is not a war with Iran. What Israel mostly fears is that the alliance relationship between the U.S. and Israel is undermined by any possible external factors, as the U.S. support is just so important for Israel.

Against the current regional context that, alongside the war in the Gaza Strip, Israel has been further being isolated by the Arab world and beyond, Israel especially needs the U.S. strong support under this circumstance. So, it is assumed that Israeli officials wouldn’t hide their intention of trying to get the U.S. into a big war in order to achieve the country’s strategic objective, if possible.

Meanwhile, as for Iran, the Iranian officials have already claimed that seeking to fully dismantle the country’s nuclear programme is not on the negotiation table, as what the Iranian officials mostly fear is that Iran would risk facing the same fate as Libya had suffered, should Iran completely give up the country’s nuclear capacity. So, for Iran, the nuclear programme is directly related to whether this country could exist or not from a long-term perspective. In this regard, it would be hard to think that Iran would agree to fully destroy the country’s nuclear capacity.

The current situation apparently is very challenging for the U.S. to make a deal with Iran, if the U.S. aims to meet the demand of Israel in pursuing a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The U.S. government needs to clearly see that the Middle East strategy of the United States and that of Israel cross with each other only under certain circumstances, when it relates to protecting Israel’s much narrower interests in the Middle East region, especially, from a security perspective, nonetheless, the interests of these two countries are not exactly the same or complementary.

There is no doubt that the U.S. Middle East strategy, compared to that of Israel, carries a much broader significance for both the U.S. and the region. By making a deal with Iran, from the U.S. perspective, it might help better serve the U.S. strategic objective toward the Middle East region and beyond, and in the meantime meet the interests of the U.S. allies especially Israel in the region.

It is assumed that the U.S. Middle East policy under the Trump government mainly bears the following purposes: trying to maintain a broader peace and stability in the Middle East region, preventing a wider war from taking place in the region, avoiding being dragged into a war with Iran, economically benefiting from the country’s cooperation with Middle East countries, distancing a bit the ties between Iran and other important international actors especially China and Russia by reaching and implementing a deal with Iran, and preventing Iran from posing a serious threat to the interests of Israel.

Obviously, one of the big differences between the U.S. and Israel in terms of their strategic interests is that Israel is not afraid of a wider war in the Middle East region, as far as it gets the full support of the U.S., while the U.S., for protecting the interests of both the U.S. and Israel, would tend to prevent a expanded war from taking place in the region and meanwhile to avoid being dragged into a big war.

So, the position held by the U.S. toward managing the Iranian nuclear issue would be most crucial in affecting the negotiation process and the matter of whether or not a new Iranian nuclear deal can finally be achieved.

In terms of the means adopted for the negotiations toward reaching a new deal with Iran - bilateral or multilateral, so far the Trump government has been applying a bilateral means, under the mediation of a third party, to engage Iran. A multilateral means could also be taken into account, if it could better meet the needs of the parties concerned.

By adopting a multilateral negotiation approach, the U.S. can still play the most significant part in driving the negotiation process. The relevant parties having ever participated in the negotiation process toward reaching the previous Iranian nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), could be invited to join the negotiations for reaching a new deal with Iran, as far as this kind of arrangement could well serve the interests of the key stakeholders concerning this matter.

The U.S. might expect to distance the relationship between Iran and China and Russia a bit through negotiating and implementing a bilateral deal with Iran. From the author’s view, regardless of whether or not the U.S. would be able to secure a bilateral agreement with Iran, the outcome out of it will not likely cause a big impact on the normal ties between Iran and China and Russia, as Iran’s relationship with the U.S. and Iran’s ties with China and Russia shouldn’t be a zero-sum play. On the Iranian nuclear issue, China, Russia, and a number of countries in the Middle East region share a common ground with the United States, when it relates to making a more peaceful and stable Middle East region.