The 'grand irony' of Trump's war with Iran is that it will likely end with the US signing a peace deal nearly identical to Obama's 2015 agreement with the regime on uranium enrichment, reporter Philip Nieto has told the Daily Mail's Deep Dive podcast.

Speaking to foreign correspondent Chris Pleasance, Nieto said IRGC hardliners have little interest in agreeing to the concessions Washington wants, leaving Trump with few good options as the political costs of the war mount ahead of the midterm elections.

On Tuesday, Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran for the fourth time, having previously vowed not to do so. Despite the truce, Wednesday morning saw the Islamic Republic seize two cargo vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and destroy a third.

Nieto identified a 'divide' between Iran's government, who are fronting peace talks, and the vengeful IRGC, who actually control the Strait, through which a fifth of the world's oil passes.

This makes the Islamic Republic extremely difficult to negotiate with, the reporter said, which could see Trump 'concede' to the same terms Obama agreed with Iran over a decade ago to avoid a prolonged stalemate.

'There are some reports of an early draft of US concessions,' Nieto explained.

'It paints a picture of Trump agreeing to a 2015 Obama-style nuclear deal with Iran, where they have to stop enriching uranium for a decade or so.

'It is a deal awfully similar to the one Trump scrapped in his first term. But in order for the President to wrap up this war and avoid a prolonged conflict, it might be something the US and Iran sign.'

'So we come all this way just to go back to where we started?' host Pleasance asked. 'That's the grand irony of it all, yes,' Nieto replied.

Before scrapping the deal in 2018, Trump labelled Obama's 2015 nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic 'one of the worst deals ever made' and a 'guaranteed road to an Iranian nuclear weapon.'

Under the Obama-era deal, Iran agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile by 97% for a period of between 10 and 15 years.

Nieto argued that accepting a deal on Iran's terms in exchange for peace is more politically palatable to Trump than restarting the war.

'There would likely be less political fallout for him,' the reporter said.

'Trump could just spin it and say: "Oh, we won! We blew up all their air defences."

'He already stated weeks ago that he had won the war, so I think behind-the-scenes he could concede to some Iranian demands and just publicly claim American victory.

'Restarting the war and potentially destabilising Iran further, which could lead them to target all power infrastructure across the Middle East, would have a much wider fallout for him.

'That's not something you can wrap up on Truth Social or just by claiming you've won. He sees it as not in his best interests to continue the war for a long period of time.'

Elsewhere in the podcast, Nieto argued the main beneficiaries of the Iran war are Russia and China.

Russia has benefited from the easing of sanctions on its oil, the reporter said, while China will be delighted by the US exposing itself as an 'unreliable ally' to the Gulf states.

'Russia and China are loving this,' he said.

'If the US is unable to win this war in the eyes of the world, it damages America's control of the Middle East.

'If the US can no longer guarantee the safety of its Gulf allies from a power like Iran, then those states will ask: "Why are we giving you this money? Why are we allowing you to have these bases if it puts us at risk for very little in return?"'

To hear Nieto's full analysis, search for Deep Dive: Not Strait Forward, wherever you get your podcasts.