AFTER a seven years hiatus, the US and Iran nuclear talks are underway, albeit in an indirect mode of negotiations held in Oman and Rome (April 12, 19).
The negotiations — between Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff–being moderated by Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Bin Hammad Al Busaidi–are changing the way the people think about this situation, offering new possibilities of a nuclear pacification between Tehran and Washington.
The second round of indirect nuclear talks held in Rome (April 19) between the US and Iran has rekindled hopes for a transcendent nuclear deal to be concluded by the next round of talks to be held in Oman next week.
The US is demanding complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, while Iran is resisting the US plan to deny Iran’s right to acquire peaceful nuclear energy, fearing the possibility of military action.
Iran’s Foreign Minister has stated that uranium enrichment, a key element of Iran’s nuclear programme, is non-negotiable.
This stance suggests a firm position in ongoing discussions about the Iran nuclear deal, highlighting the significance Iran places on its nuclear capabilities.
The primary obstacles in the US-Iran nuclear talks revolve around two core issues: Iran’s reluctance to transfer its enriched uranium stockpile to a third country and the demand for Iran to cease activities related to weaponization.
The US insists on halting uranium enrichment, which Iran claims is for energy purposes.
Iranian officials have signaled a willingness to develop nuclear weapons with their existing enriched uranium.
These disagreements represent the main stumbling blocks in negotiations, with the transfer of uranium potentially mitigating proliferation concerns and the halt of weaponization being critical to non-proliferation efforts.
Still, some argue that ‘’a window of opportunity may exist, otherwise, as the western side fears that beyond October 2025, the JCPOA sunset clauses begin to kick in, consequently enabling Iran to do whatever it might wish while proclaiming full compliance with its commitments.
Moreover, Iran rejects US demands of shifting its enriched uranium to a third country and Russia bluntly supports Iran’s right to acquire peaceful nuclear energy.
As per the CNN, Iranian officials have dismissed that proposal as a non-starter, advocating that Tehran is entitled to a civilian nuclear energy program under a UN treaty.
Needless to say, using pragmatism in US-Iran nuclear talks can foster progress by focusing on transcendent achievable goals, like preventing military strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Both sides have demonstrated pragmatism by keeping channels of communication open.
A pragmatic approach would involve recognizing each other’s core aims, such as Iran’s desire for infrastructure protection and the US’s non-proliferation concerns.
Success hinges on both parties demonstrating a willingness to compromise and engage in further negotiations, potentially including easing sanctions.
Obviously, the Obama Administration’s approach to the Iran nuclear programme, once characterized by a ‘soft strategy’ was focused on arms control, albeit not on nuclear disarmament, limiting Iran’s nuclear programme while leaving it intact.
Seemingly, after the second round of talks in Rome the Trump administration is replicating the Obama administration’s approach, offering sanctions relief in exchange for limitations and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities.
As of now, Iran offered the US a nuclear agreement stipulating the same enrichment cap as it offered in 2015.
Arguably, in the third stage of these talks, an arrangement, the US could demand from Tehran is to cap its uranium enrichment whereas shifting its enriched uranium to a third country, while boosting UN’s oversight at its facilities.
But from the Iranian perspective, it will not negotiate any terms regarding militarization of its nuclear programme.
Thus, the complex situation involves striking a balance between diplomatic engagement and the enforcement of stricter controls.
Iran seeks the lifting of US sanctions, primarily due to the economic strain they impose.
Tehran aims to attract foreign investment to revitalize its declining economy.
Discussions regarding the lifting of sanctions are underway, potentially linked to a new nuclear deal.
A key aspect of any potential agreement involves Iran limiting its nuclear program and allowing international inspections.
The US stance, however, is complex, with the possibility of military action if Iran doesn’t adhere to a new deal, highlighting the sensitivity of the situation.
It is a good omen that Saudi’s Defence Minister Prince Khalid Bin Salman visited Tehran to show Riyadh’s support for these talks amid Russia’s support of Tehran right to acquire nuclear energy.
Notably, Trump’s revocation of JCPOA in 2018 was against the UNSC resolution and above all, seen from the international law perspective, US sanctions on Iran are unfair and unilateral.
With an illusion, Israel is resurrecting the Begin doctrine—advocating for preemptive against Iranian nuclear facilities at Iranian nuclear sites.
IranIran cites the threat from Israel as a primary reason for maintaining its weaponization programme.
Strategists view the US-Iran nuclear talks as a potential good omen primarily because they could prevent the looming conflict.
The primary challenge is to bridge the gap between these opposing positions.
Hopes for a new deal hinge on compromise, but the current demands and resistance suggest difficult negotiations ahead, potentially complicated by domestic political pressures in both countries.
While respecting Iran’s right to energy production, the ongoing talks could help build trust and facilitate a lasting agreement.
Amid Iran’s possible strategy to reestablish deterrence, the talks will test the Trump Administration’s ability to negotiate a master deal with Iran, for years whose leadership is committed to defend Tehran’s war-peace driven strategic interests.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)
