President Donald Trump expressed optimism regarding ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, suggesting “very good things” were underway. Iranian and Omani officials echoed this positive sentiment, noting a more serious and detailed tone in the discussions.
However, despite this upbeat rhetoric, the negotiations face deep-rooted challenges, chief among them being the U.S. insistence on Iran abandoning all domestic enrichment of uranium, a demand that has historically hindered progress.
The insistence on zero enrichment—a stance backed by U.S. hardliners like Bush, Cheney, Bolton, and Pompeo—remains a major obstacle. This demand exceeds what’s necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and its imposition threatens to derail diplomatic efforts. Historically, such inflexible positions have given Iran more time to advance its program while stalling any potential agreements grounded in verification and oversight.
Rejecting Early Diplomacy Enabled Iran’s Nuclear Growth, JCPOA Offered Realistic, Effective Constraints
Iran once proposed a comprehensive deal in 2003 when its nuclear capabilities were minimal. The Bush administration, however, dismissed the proposal, even punishing the Swiss ambassador for delivering it.
By refusing diplomacy that allowed for limited enrichment, the U.S. inadvertently enabled Iran’s nuclear expansion. Talks under Bush faltered due to unrealistic preconditions, whereas a shift under Obama—accepting enrichment under strict limits—opened the door to serious negotiations.
Trump Signals Hope on Iran Nuclear Talks, but Zero-Enrichment Demand Threatens Diplomatic Breakthrough
This pragmatic shift led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which effectively capped Iran’s program. But years of demanding zero enrichment had allowed Iran to build a larger, more sophisticated nuclear infrastructure. Now, with JCPOA enforcement in question and snapback sanctions looming, the costs of continued delay and inflexible policy are higher than ever, making it critical to avoid repeating past mistakes.
Impending Snapback Deadline Risks Crisis, Undermining Diplomacy and Escalating Toward Potential Military Conflict
The snapback mechanism, which allows UN sanctions to be reimposed without a Security Council veto, is set to expire in October. European nations may trigger it soon, prompting Iran to withdraw from both the JCPOA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This would make its nuclear activities completely opaque.
The ensuing crisis would likely consume time that should be spent reaching a substantive agreement, instead shifting focus to negotiating a new UN resolution under even more difficult geopolitical circumstances.
Trump’s reluctance to embrace war with Iran is well-founded. Iran’s missile capabilities have proven more advanced than previously assumed, posing serious risks to U.S. and allied forces. A military campaign would only temporarily delay Iran’s program while causing potentially heavy casualties and political fallout.
Unlike past administrations, Trump has an opportunity to strike a durable deal—if he avoids the unrealistic demand of zero enrichment and resists pressure from hawkish advisers and allies.
