In just three rounds of indirect negotiations — within the span of two weeks — U.S. and Iranian officials have made strides that previously took months to achieve in the lead-up to the 2015 nuclear deal. After only two rounds, both sides agreed to begin technical negotiations — a sign that political will exists on both ends to reach an understanding. This momentum didn’t appear in a vacuum.
The impatient and erratic U.S. President, Donald Trump, is under domestic pressure ahead of the midterm congressional elections. A foreign policy victory — particularly one that caps Iran’s nuclear capabilities — would be a convenient trophy to parade at home. That goal also enjoys bipartisan appeal in Washington.
For its part, Iran, strangled by layered economic sanctions, appears willing to strike a deal. Although it projects a degree of reluctance toward Trump’s haste, President Bazshkian’s administration is economically driven — and motivated to move quickly to lift sanctions.
Otherwise, Tehran would have never entered negotiations with a man it regards as embodying all it distrusts in American leadership. While both sides may be negotiating in search of resolution, conflicting expectations threaten to derail the entire process if compromises aren’t found.
Cracks Beneath the Surface
The postponement of a fourth round of talks due to “logistical reasons” hints at deep disagreements. The previously optimistic atmosphere is now dimmed. Meanwhile, Washington has imposed new sanctions and warned third parties dealing with Iran of secondary penalties.
Iranian Foreign Minister statements are becoming sharper. In a recent call with the UN Secretary-General, he reaffirmed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, including the enrichment of uranium — a central demand Tehran sees as non-negotiable.
This puts it at odds with Washington’s position. U.S. officials have repeatedly argued that Iran has no need to enrich uranium domestically to benefit from nuclear power. That disagreement has become the main stumbling block in the negotiations.
Legal Rights, Broken Trust
According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — to which Iran is a signatory — enrichment for peaceful purposes is a protected right. This legal foundation has bolstered Iran’s position. Notably, the original 2015 deal came after the U.S. and European allies reluctantly accepted this legal right.
Yet beyond enrichment, several thorny issues threaten to complicate negotiations — including guarantees, sanction relief mechanisms, uranium enrichment levels, and rebuilding trust in the peaceful intent of Iran’s program.
Negotiators expected rough waters. The distrust is mutual and long-standing. For Iran, any deal without robust guarantees is essentially meaningless. For the U.S., convincing Congress and allies is no less challenging.
Iran knows any deal with Washington must withstand future administrations, especially after the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 deal under Trump, which was followed by an onslaught of “maximum pressure” sanctions.
A Two-Tier Guarantee System
Iran now insists that any future deal include ironclad guarantees. Two frameworks have emerged:
- Gradual Implementation: Tehran wants a phased approach. For every Iranian rollback in nuclear activity, there must be a corresponding lifting of sanctions by Washington. This model allows both sides to verify compliance at each step — reducing the risk of betrayal.
- Future-Proofing the Agreement: Here, two schools of thought exist:
- Legal Guarantees: Some Iranian officials argue that any agreement must pass through the U.S. Congress to ensure long-term enforceability.
- Technical Guarantees: Others are sceptical of legal processes. They suggest building in deterrents — like allowing Iran to retain enriched uranium under IAEA oversight or keeping advanced centrifuges on standby. This ensures Iran can quickly resume high-level enrichment if Washington defaults again.
Israel’s Interference & Regional Stakes
One of the biggest external threats to an Iran-U.S. understanding is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has long pushed for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and continues to promote the so-called “Libyan model” of total dismantlement — a proposal Iran has flatly rejected.
Although Netanyahu seeks confrontation, Israel’s own deep state is more pragmatic, favoring a deal that would monitor and limit Iran’s nuclear program rather than provoke an unwinnable war.
Interestingly, reports suggest that U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s predecessor was removed for maintaining direct conversations with Netanyahu about attacking Iran. This suggests that Tel Aviv’s influence in Washington may be waning, at least temporarily.
Still, Israel’s backers within the Trump administration have leveraged the no-enrichment demand and Libyan model to stall or sabotage negotiations — even if only for a time.
Iran Plays the Long Game
Iran is not relying solely on talks with Washington. It has begun consulting Arab neighbours, China, and Russia — aiming to reduce Western leverage and balance regional equations. This strategy mirrors what Tehran learned from the fallout of the 2015 deal: never trust Washington alone.
The regional climate today is more open to a U.S.-Iran understanding than it was in 2015 — with the notable exception of Israel, which remains determined to provoke a clash.
Trump’s Political Gamble
Despite his tough talk, Trump may be persuaded by the prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize, especially if framed as a historic breakthrough. Iranian diplomats have subtly played into this, emphasising economic opportunities and hinting at investment potential once sanctions are lifted.
Trump’s ego-driven motivations may yet prove a decisive factor.
Final Thoughts: A Deal, or Another Dead End?
What’s unfolding is not merely a diplomatic negotiation — it’s a high-stakes chess game involving legal traps, political egos, and regional resistance. While both Iran and the U.S. have compelling reasons to reach a deal, details may kill the dream.
At the heart of it all lies one question: Will political will triumph over sabotage and mistrust? That answer may come not from the fine print — but from the strength of each side’s conviction to see through the fog of betrayal and stand on sovereign principle.
