Former President Donald Trump has maintained a transactional approach to nuclear negotiations that created vastly different outcomes with North Korea and Iran. His administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 but pursued direct engagement with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, resulting in three summits between 2018 and 2019.

The contrast reflects Trump's preference for personal diplomacy over multilateral frameworks. With North Korea, Trump bet that direct talks and relationship-building could freeze the nuclear program. The strategy produced symbolic wins, including a temporary halt to missile tests, though verification remained elusive and negotiations stalled after 2019.

His Iran policy took the opposite course. Trump abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which international partners had negotiated over years, citing insufficient restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program and regional activities. He reimposed sanctions and withdrew American participation from the multilateral agreement.

The apparent paradox hinges on execution and perceived leverage. Trump believed personal relationships with Kim could bypass institutional constraints. He thought Iran's leadership responded only to maximum pressure, not dialogue. Neither assumption fully materialized. North Korea continued weapons development under the diplomatic radar. Iran accelerated uranium enrichment after Trump withdrew from the deal.

Looking forward, Trump's willingness to engage directly with adversaries could theoretically extend to Iranian leadership. His transactional worldview suggests nuclear talks remain possible if perceived mutual benefit exists. The question becomes whether Trump would pursue a similar summit strategy with Iran's current or future leadership that he attempted with North Korea.

The comparison reveals a core weakness in Trump's negotiating model. Personality-driven diplomacy without institutional support produces short-term theater rather than lasting agreements. North Korea's continued weapons development and Iran's accelerated enrichment both occurred under Trump's watch, suggesting personal connections and bilateral meetings cannot substitute for verifiable, enforceable agreements backed by international consensus.

Future negotiations with either state require clarity on verification mechanisms,