DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Recent diplomatic discussions between the Trump administration and Iran have commenced on a promising note, according to officials from both nations, despite lingering differences and uncertain stipulations from either party.
Heightened optimism surrounds the negotiations, reflecting an improvement in dialogue between the two historically opposed nations. U.S. and Iranian representatives have scheduled further talks for the following week in Rome, with Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterizing Saturday’s discussions as having occurred in a “constructive atmosphere based on mutual respect.”
This contrasts sharply with efforts made by the Biden administration to resurrect the 2015 nuclear deal. The dynamics have shifted significantly, placing the U.S. in a position of greater leverage while Iran faces heightened vulnerability.
“The Iranians currently appear more desperate compared to 2022, primarily due to their weakened economy,” remarked Gregory Brew, a senior analyst specializing in Iran and energy at Eurasia Group. “Their regional standing has deteriorated considerably, and they are apprehensive about the level of stress they can endure, especially amid rising internal dissent. This increases their urgency to secure a deal, and the Trump administration might offer a potential pathway to achieving that.”
Brew highlighted that Biden’s administration needs to navigate public sentiment cautiously, as any perceived leniency toward Iran may invite criticism. In contrast, Trump, already perceived as an Iran hawk, imposes “maximum pressure” sanctions without similar constraints.
Since Trump withdrew from the multilateral agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Iran’s economy has plunged significantly. The deal, established in 2015 by the Obama administration alongside Russia, China, the EU, and the UK, was intended to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from sanctions.
The Islamic Republic has grappled with widespread protests, a plummeting currency, and a rising cost of living for its citizens. Last year, the region’s dynamics shifted drastically when Iran lost its principal ally in the Middle East following the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. Additionally, Israel has targeted and eliminated much of Hezbollah’s senior leadership, further complicating Iran’s regional influence.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has historically resisted negotiations with the U.S. However, it has been reported that senior officials within Iran have initiated efforts to persuade him that engaging in dialogue is crucial for the regime’s long-term survival.
What kind of a ‘nuclear program’ are we talking about?
Trump has made his stance clear: he will not permit a nuclear-armed Iran. Since the U.S. left the JCPOA, Iran has accelerated its uranium enrichment, raising alarms with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog.
“Iran remains the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching uranium to this level, raising significant concerns over potential weapons development,” noted a March 3 U.N. news release.
While Iran asserts that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes, the IAEA reported a uranium enrichment level of 60%, far exceeding the limit set in the 2015 agreement and approaching the threshold for weapons-grade enrichment at 90%.
Trump has continuously warned of military repercussions if Iran does not conform to U.S. expectations. “I would like a deal done with Iran on non-nuclear,” Trump remarked in a February interview. “I would prefer that to bombing the hell out of it.”
This external pressure has seemingly influenced Iran’s readiness to engage in negotiations, according to Ryan Bohl, a senior analyst at the RANE Network. “The Iranians are keen on developing a viable framework that would allow for prolonged negotiations and avert military actions that Trump has suggested might occur soon,” Bohl stated.
Furthermore, he noted, “Any indication of relief for Iran could positively impact local conditions and bolster public support for the Islamic Republic.”
Despite this progress, the specific conditions of any potential agreement remain uncertain, and upcoming discussions will elucidate the scope of discrepancies in positions from both nations. A significant hurdle persists, as Iran remains firm on its commitment to maintaining its nuclear program—a non-negotiable point for its leadership. However, the Trump administration may display some flexibility regarding the nature of that program, provided it does not lead to weaponization.
Further dialogue will be essential to gauge Trump’s specific demands, which have yet to be disclosed fully. “The core element of these negotiations has always revolved around what the U.S. expects from Iran,” said Nader Itayim, Mideast Gulf Editor at Argus Media. “Is the objective to dismantle Iran’s entire nuclear initiative, or is it merely to ensure that it does not evolve into a weapons program?”
Itayim added, “Trump has clearly stated recently: no weaponization. This forms a critical boundary for negotiations. The Iranians have consistently asserted that they do not seek nuclear weapons, presenting an opportune starting point for discussions.”
Nevertheless, deep-seated mistrust lingers between both parties, and particularly vocal opponents of the negotiations, such as allies in Israel, express displeasure about any potential leniency from the Trump administration.
Just days prior to the U.S.-Iran discussions in Oman, Trump indicated that Israel would take the lead role in any military action against Iran, should the latter fail to relinquish its nuclear ambitions.
