Despite the public façade of optimism presented by both Iranian and American officials, behind closed doors, the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain deeply fractured. After three rounds of indirect talks and the postponement of a fourth, it’s clear that significant hurdles remain before any agreement can be reached.
One of the biggest obstacles? Israel, which continues to exert massive pressure on Washington to abandon diplomacy and instead adopt a military posture against Iran. As many observers note, Israel is seeking to drag the U.S. into war with Iran, to serve Netanyahu’s political survival, even if it means sacrificing American lives for Zionist ambitions.
Former President Donald Trump’s recent comments that he would not be “tricked by Netanyahu into starting a war with Iran” reflect the extent of pressure from the Zionist lobby inside the U.S., which opposes any negotiated solution.
Just last week, Netanyahu bluntly declared that Israel seeks military dominance over the region, and that Iran remains the only real obstacle to that goal.
Netanyahu’s Vision: A ‘Libya Scenario’ for Iran
In public speeches, including from the White House and the United Nations, Netanyahu has repeatedly called for applying the “Libya model” to Iran—stripping it of all defensive capabilities to make it an easy target for Israeli or American attacks.
Two years ago, he even threatened Iran with a nuclear strike during a UN address—later dismissed by his office as a “slip.” But Iran took it seriously. As the only nuclear-armed state in the region, Israel’s record of unprovoked aggression in Gaza and Lebanon, combined with international silence, raises legitimate fears that such threats could become reality.
This is why Iran refuses to negotiate over its defense capabilities or its strategic alliances in the region. These, it asserts, are the only effective deterrents against Israeli or American aggression.
Iran’s Nuclear Threshold and Deterrence Strategy
It is now widely acknowledged that Iran has reached the nuclear threshold. Experts believe it could assemble a nuclear weapon in as little as two weeks—but has chosen not to do so.
Iranian officials such as Kamal Kharazi and Ali Larijani have publicly stated that while the capability exists, the political decision is to stop short of weaponisation—as long as no existential threat emerges.
The logic is clear: the mere existence of this capability acts as a deterrent, signaling that any attempt to destroy the Islamic Republic could result in Iran crossing the nuclear line to ensure survival.
Iran’s Red Lines and Demands in the Talks
Iran has made it clear it will not discuss:
-
- Its ballistic missile program
-
- Its regional alliances with groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis
It also demands that the U.S. compel Israel to:
-
- Join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
-
- Allow IAEA inspections at the same standard demanded of Iran
Iran also insists that:
-
- All U.S. sanctions must be lifted immediately
-
- The U.S. must offer binding guarantees not to abandon any future deal
-
- Compensation be paid for economic losses since Trump exited the 2015 agreement
-
- Iran’s frozen assets must be released, and banking channels restored
-
- The U.S. must cease hostile military, political, and media actions
Stalled Talks and U.S. Demands Rejected
In the third round of talks, American negotiators made several demands:
-
- Complete halt to uranium enrichment, replaced by imported uranium (rejected)
-
- American inspectors in Iranian nuclear facilities (partially accepted under IAEA umbrella)
-
- Inspections of military sites for long-range missile production (firmly rejected)
-
- Export or dilution of enriched uranium beyond 3.67% (Iran wants to retain it under IAEA oversight as leverage)
-
- U.S. investment in Iranian nuclear projects (Iran conditionally open to joint ventures)
-
- Permanent deal with no sunset clause (under discussion)
During one tense moment, Iran threatened to walk out of talks after the U.S. demanded access to military sites. Only after Omani mediation did the talks resume, and the demand was withdrawn.
The fourth round of talks was postponed after the U.S. delegation claimed its economic team wasn’t prepared.
Europe, Russia, and China: Competing for Influence
Europe is deeply frustrated at being sidelined. The U.S. has pushed for a bilateral deal, minimizing European influence.
Europeans argue they suffered economic losses from U.S. sanctions, while American firms now seek exclusive access to Iran’s market. Iran, in turn, sees Europeans as untrustworthy—they abandoned trade even before the U.S. did.
Meanwhile, Russia and China have worked to maintain strategic ties with Iran:
-
- Russia hopes to link a nuclear deal with U.S.–Russia talks on Ukraine
-
- China, having expanded trade with Iran, wants to ensure it retains economic influence
To reassure both allies, Iran’s foreign minister is engaging Beijing and Moscow. President Masoud Pezeshkian also plans a visit to China to reaffirm Iran’s commitment to its strategic cooperation pact.
Distrust of the U.S. Remains the Core Issue
Ultimately, Iran doesn’t trust Washington.
Years of betrayal, unilateral sanctions, and open support for Israeli aggression leave Tehran reluctant to compromise without ironclad guarantees.
Iran’s priority is clear: maintain sovereignty, secure regional alliances, and keep deterrence intact—even if that means walking away from the negotiating table again.
