US nuclear talks with Iran move forward, but many pitfalls lie ahead

WASHINGTON – The first meeting between the United States and Iran over its expanding nuclear programmes on April 12 displayed a seriousness of purpose and an effort to avoid what neither side wants – another war in the Middle East. They will talk again on April 19, but the hard work lies ahead, as hardliners in both countries, and Israel, are expected to balk at most any deal.

If the first nuclear deal, reached in 2015, was prompted by Iran’s desire to rid itself of punishing economic sanctions, these talks have more urgency.

Iran, battered by Israel and with its regional proxies diminished, still wants economic relief.

But it also understands that the Islamic Republic itself is under threat and that US President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the first deal because he thought it was too weak, may not be bluffing about Iran facing “bombing the likes of which they’ve never seen before”.

And Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has given his negotiators at least one last chance to trade Iran’s nuclear ambitions for lasting security.

The talks in Oman also promised some efficiency.

The 2015 deal was struck between Iran and six countries – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, with the European Union playing the role of intermediary – and took two years.

This time the talks are bilateral, with the Europeans but also Russia and China on the sidelines.

And although the US remains “the Great Satan” for Ayatollah Khamenei, it also holds the key to restraining Israel and securing any lasting settlement.

While Iran insisted on indirect talks through Oman, and Mr Trump on direct talks, the two sides managed to fudge the issue, with Mr Trump’s special envoy, Mr Steve Witkoff, talking directly to Iran’s foreign minister, Mr Abbas Araghchi, as the meeting ended.

“This is as good a start as it gets,” said Mr Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group. “They could have stumbled, but they agreed to meet again, they met together at the end, and they agreed on the ultimate objective.”

Importantly, Mr Trump and Mr Witkoff indicated that their real bottom line is ensuring that Iran can never build a nuclear weapon – despite harsh demands from Trump officials before the talks that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme entirely as well as abandon its missile programme and its support for its regional proxies.

Iran had made it clear that such broad demands would leave it defenseless and would end the talks before they began. So limiting the goal to ensuring that Iran can never build a nuclear bomb, if the administration sticks with that, would sharply enhance the talks’ chance of success.

“The Iranians came prepared for more than an icebreaker, but with the expectation to break the logjam with the US, and most important, to hear directly what is the real US bottom line,” said professor Vali Nasr from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

“If it’s no weapon, then they can negotiate on levels of enrichment, inspections and so on. But Iran does not want to get into a situation where it cannot deliver and risk more sanctions and war,” he said. “What Iran wants is pretty clear: credible sanction relief and a deal that sticks.”

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is solely civilian, but it has enriched enough uranium close to weapons-grade quality to make at least six bombs, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which implements the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that Iran has signed.

Despite their mistrust of Mr Trump, the Iranians think he would be better able to guarantee the sustainability of a deal that he makes and face down his own Republican hardliners, Prof Nasr said.

The Iranians never trusted Mr Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden “to follow through and avoid being undermined by Congress”, he said.

“We’re in the best place we could be after this meeting,” said Ms Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House.

There were positive statements from both sides around a plan to move forward, she said, and “a mutual understanding about the urgency required, the opportunity presented and signs of pragmatism from both sides”.

Then she added: “Of course, the hard stuff lies ahead.”

A serious deal will be enormously complicated and technical, and it will take time. It would also need to survive efforts to undermine the talks by hardliners in both countries and in Israel.

Israel, which opposed the 2015 deal, wants a more comprehensive disarmament of Iran and keeps talking about the need to strike it militarily now, when the regime is weak and its air defences have been badly compromised by Israeli airstrikes.

Iran has in the past vowed to destroy Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel says he wants Iran to no longer be able to enrich any uranium at all.

Israel, citing the

October 2023 Hamas attack,

has badly damaged Iranian proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and wants to try to ensure that Iran cannot rebuild them.

The hope is that a next meeting or two can produce an interim agreement that gives both sides confidence to move forward, with short-term measures from both sides so long as the talks continue.

They could include Iran agreeing to freeze uranium enrichment and allow more inspections in return for Washington suspending some of its “maximum pressure” sanctions. NYTIMES