How Trump blindsided Israel’s Netanyahu with his Iran nuclear gamble

WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump blindsided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his decision to immediately open negotiations with Iran in April. Now, the talks hinge on winning key concessions that would prevent the Islamic Republic from ever developing a nuclear bomb, eight sources said.

The pivot to

negotiations with Iran in April

was a shock for Mr Netanyahu, who had flown to Washington seeking Mr Trump’s backing for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and learnt less than 24 hours before a joint White House press event that US talks with Iran were starting within days, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Tehran’s leadership remains deeply concerned that Mr Netanyahu may launch a strike – deal or no deal, a senior Iranian security official said.

However, in just three weeks, the US and Iran have

held three rounds of talks

aimed at preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon in return for sanctions relief. A fourth round is expected to take place in Rome soon.

For this story, Reuters spoke to officials and diplomats from all sides of the negotiations who disclosed previously unreported details under discussion. All requested anonymity to speak about delicate ongoing conversations.

An initial framework under discussion preserves the core of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) –

scrapped by Mr Trump in 2018

during his first term, eight sources said.

A deal may not look radically different from the former pact, which Mr Trump called the worst in history, but would extend the duration to 25 years, tighten verification and expand so-called sunset clauses that pause but do not completely dismantle aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, all the sources said. 

Under the terms being discussed, Iran would limit stockpile size and centrifuge types, and dilute, export or seal its 60 per cent uranium stock under unprecedented International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny – all in exchange for substantial sanctions relief, all the sources said.

The US State Department, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and Mr Netanyahu’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr Dennis Ross, a former negotiator under both US Republicans and Democrats, said any new agreement must go further than the JCPOA by imposing a permanent, structural change in Tehran’s nuclear capabilities – shrinking its infrastructure to the point where developing a bomb is no longer a practical option.

“Anything less would leave the threshold threat intact,” he told Reuters.

But several red lines are emerging that negotiators will have to circumvent to reach a deal and avert future military action.

Foremost is the question of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, something

Washington and Israel say must stop

entirely, leaving Iran reliant on imported uranium for Bushehr, its only existing nuclear power plant, located on the Gulf coast.

Mr Netanyahu is

demanding “zero enrichment”

and a Libya-style deal that dismantles Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Iran says

its right to enrich is not negotiable.

However, the size of the uranium stockpile, shipping stocks out of the country and the number of centrifuges are under discussion, three Iranian officials said. 

Under proposals discussed in rounds of talks in April, Iran would cap enrichment at 3.67 per cent, in line with the JCPOA, all the sources said, including three Iranian officials. Tehran is also open to granting the IAEA expanded access to its nuclear sites, the Iranian sources said.

The proposals do not seek to dismantle Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure entirely as Israel and some US officials want, but aim to lock in permanent constraints on uranium enrichment that deter any breakout, the sources said.

US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff appeared to acknowledge that position in comments last week, but later said Iran must “stop and eliminate” enrichment. 

One way out could be for Iran to accept long breaks to the enrichment programme, through an extension of sunset clauses, said Mr Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and the founding director of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

“The Iranians, if they were smart, they would settle for much longer sunset clauses going into the future,” Mr Vatanka said, emphasising the importance of each side being able to claim victory in the talks.

Another possible compromise could involve Iran retaining minimal enrichment, with 5,000 centrifuges, while importing the rest of the enriched uranium, possibly from Russia, one of the three Iranian sources, a senior security official, told Reuters.

In return for limits on enrichment, Tehran has demanded watertight guarantees Mr Trump would not again ditch a nuclear pact, the three Iranian officials said.

Among the red lines mandated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is reducing the amount of enriched uranium it stores to below the level agreed in the 2015 deal, the three sources said. Iran has been able to “significantly” increase the amount of uranium it can enrich to 60 per cent purity, the IAEA said in December.

The JCPOA permitted Iran to only accumulate enriched uranium produced by its first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, but now Iran is using far more advanced models banned under the 2015 deal.

A senior regional source close to Tehran said the current debate over Iran’s uranium stockpiles centres on whether Iran “will keep a portion of it – diluted – inside the country while sending another portion abroad, possibly to Russia”. 

According to the source, Iran has even floated the idea of selling enriched uranium to the United States.

Iran now operates around 15,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA, it was allowed to operate about 6,000.

“Essentially, the negotiations are shaping into a ‘JCPOA 2’ with some additions that would allow Trump to present it as a victory, while Iran could still keep its right to enrichment,” the senior Iranian official said.

Another sticking point relates to Iran’s ballistic missile manufacturing capacity. Washington and Israel say Iran should stop making missiles. Iran counters that it has a right to self-defence. One Iranian official previously told Reuters it would not go beyond the requirements of the 2015 deal, offering only to avoid building missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads as a “gesture of goodwill”.

Washington is pressing to include the ballistic missile programme in the talks, but Tehran “continues to reject any discussion”, said one regional security official. “The problem”, he added, “is that without addressing the missile issue, Mr Trump cannot claim that the new deal goes beyond the JCPOA”.

Former negotiator Ross points out the contradiction: Mr Trump abandoned the JCPOA for being too weak, and as a result now faces a reality where Tehran stands at the threshold of nuclear weapons capability.

“Accepting a deal that mirrors or softens the original would be politically indefensible,” he said, suggesting that a deal must slash centrifuges from 20,000 to 1,000, ship out all enriched stockpiles and impose intrusive, penalty-backed inspections.

Strike risk

Mr Vatanka, the analyst, likened Iran’s current predicament to the 1988 decision by the regime’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini to accept a ceasefire with Iraq – a moment he famously likened to drinking “the bitter chalice of poison”.

“It’s about survival,” Mr Vatanka said. “It’s not capitulation.”

Diplomats say Mr Netanyahu sees a rare opening, as 2024’s military campaigns crippled Iran’s air defences and decimated Hezbollah’s missile arsenal – Tehran’s primary deterrent.

“This is a historic window for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear sites,” said an official in the Middle East. The US, he said, opposes such a move for several reasons – chief among them the concerns of Gulf Arab states, which Washington cannot ignore given its deep strategic and economic ties in the region.

“Still, it must weigh Israel’s security calculations,” he said. “So while the US may not take part directly, it could offer indirect support. It would be a difficult operation for Israel – but not an impossible one.”

The US military has surged assets in recent weeks to reinforce the Middle East. The Pentagon has deployed six B-2 bombers to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia – a location used in the past to support its military operations in the Middle East. 

Additionally, the US now has two aircraft carriers in the region and has moved in air defence systems from Asia. 

Mr Alan Eyre, a former US diplomat and Farsi-speaking Middle East expert, warned that a strike may slow Iran’s programme, but will not eliminate it.

“You cannot bomb know-how,” he said. “The knowledge is there. Iran has mastered uranium enrichment.” REUTERS