Ahead of the talks, Trump said that he wanted Iran ‘to be a wonderful, great, happy country; but they can’t have nuclear weapons’.
NEW DELHI: INTRODUCTION
Iran and the US held their first talks since President Trump came to power in Muscat on 12 April. The meeting was brief, respectful, constructive and set the stage for a second round. The US envoy, Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “briefly spoke” together—the first time the two nations have done that since the Obama administration.
The next round of discussions is likely to take place in Rome at the end of this week with the US hailing the “direct communication” as being key to striking a possible deal.
“Neither we, nor the other party, want fruitless negotiations, discussions for discussions’ sake, time wasting or talks that drag on forever,” Araghchi told Iranian state television. The most important issue at stake is what kind of deal each side would be willing to accept.
THE MEETING
The Iranian and US teams sat in separate rooms, with the Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi shuffling back and forth. At the end, Witkoff and Araghchi met in person briefly.
Prior to the meeting, Araghchi had said the goal was to build trust and to reach an agreement on the framework and timeline for negotiations on the nuclear programme. Iran had indicated that if the US put full dismantlement of its nuclear programme, it would walk away from the talks.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi wrote on X that the talks were “conducive to bridging viewpoints and ultimately achieving regional and global peace, security and stability.”
President Donald Trump, who pulled the US out of a previous nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers in 2018, has long said he would make a “better” deal.
For Iran, the first round of talks went as well as could be expected. It can claim that two of its main conditions for taking the negotiations to the next level were achieved: Washington kept the focus on Iran’s nuclear programme and did not mention the dismantling of its nuclear facilities or its regional policy with proxy militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
As per reports, Steve Witkoff, did not suggest that Iran abandon its enrichment programme entirely. Instead, the focus was on the country not weaponizing its existing material. But added, “That doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to bridge gaps.”
In a statement following the talks, the White House noted that Witkoff had emphasised to Iran that he had instructions to resolve the adversaries’ “differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible”.
THE STANCE OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES
President Trump had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader via the UAE last month, saying he wanted a deal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avert possible military strikes by the US and Israel. He said he would rather find a way to forge a deal than escalate a military campaign. If such a deal could not be reached in the coming weeks he said, Iran may face a military campaign against its facilities. President Trump received a letter back saying the moment to talk had arrived.
Ahead of the talks, Trump said on Friday that he wanted Iran “to be a wonderful, great, happy country—but they can’t have nuclear weapons”.
But even as preparations were under way, the US moved two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 stealth bombers and fighter jets to the region and imposed more sanctions.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on 10 April he hoped that the talks would lead to peace, adding that “We’ve been very clear what Iran is never going to have a nuclear weapon, and I think that’s what led to this meeting.”
The Iranian delegation had planned to convey that it was open to talking about scaling back uranium enrichment and allowing outside monitoring of its nuclear activity, according to reports. But Witkoff, however, had publicly suggested a different so-called red line, telling the Wall Street Journal that such a marker would be the development of a nuclear weapon. He indicated that it would not be the enrichment programme itself.
Iran insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and that it will never seek to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. It hopes for a deal to limit, but not dismantle, its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian officials also made it clear the negotiations would focus only on its nuclear programme, not its broader defence capability, such as its ballistic missile programme.
Iran has sought sanctions relief as its economy reels from renewed US pressure and regional setbacks in exchange for limits on its nuclear programme during the talks. It also needs time and space to recover from a string of strategic blows that have significantly diminished its standing and influence in the region. These aims, however, cannot be achieved without settling the nuclear issue.
The 2015 nuclear deal took nearly two years of intensive negotiations. At the start of this new effort to reach an agreement, Iran’s programme is far more developed and complex, and the wider region is far more volatile. The fact is that the balance of power has changed dramatically since the last deal ten years ago.
At issue is also the fact that UK, Germany and France must signal by the end of July whether they will re-impose UN sanctions against Tehran. The option to re-impose those sanctions, which were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, will expire on 18 October. Iran in turn is threatening to pull out of the NPT if sanctions are re-imposed.
The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on 8 April had said that both he and President Trump had agreed that Iran “will not have nuclear weapons”. He called for a “Libya-style deal”, referring to Libya completely dismantling its weapons programme in 2003. That would be completely unacceptable to Iran.
There are also reports of a US proposal to transfer Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a third country such as Russia in its effort to scale back Tehran’s civil nuclear programme and prevent it from being used to develop a nuclear weapon. While Iran feels the stockpile, amassed over the past four years, should remain in Iran under supervision of IAEA. Tehran sees this as a precaution, or a form of insurance.
Israel, which regards Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, has long threatened to attack Iran if diplomacy fails to curb its nuclear ambitions. “The deal with Iran is acceptable only if the nuclear sites are destroyed under US supervision,” is what Prime Minister Netanyahu stated.
The next rounds of talks will have tricky issues regarding dispensing with the Iranian stockpile and the reintroduction of an independent inspection regime. While both sides may have cleared a low bar, each side must exercise restraint. For the US, this could mean bringing down the military threats.
But Steve Witkoff on 15 April said that Tehran “must stop and eliminate” its nuclear enrichment programme to reach a deal with Washington, seemingly raising the bar of US demands. His remarks contradict his suggestion a day earlier that the US would be satisfied with Iran enriching uranium at a low level to produce energy.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has always favoured talks with the US as the way to escape “the cage of sanctions”, but he has faced resistance from Parliamentary hardliners.
CONCLUSION
Simmering tensions between Iran and Israel escalating into a more intense conflict would lead to further turmoil in the Middle East. Given the challenges, even a limited deal that does not fundamentally dismantle Iran’s programme and leads to the lifting of sanctions will be a huge positive. But there are those who are opposed to a deal apart from hardliners in Iran, Israel too prefers an Iran that is sidelined.
Despite the longstanding tensions and ideological differences, both the US and Iran agree that Iran should not pursue a nuclear bomb. Khamenei has repeatedly declared that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that acquiring nuclear weapons would go against Islamic principles. Trump has also said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons and should reach a “verified nuclear peace agreement.”
India will of course benefit immensely from Iran’s reintegration as it will result in resuming crude oil purchases as well as furthering the North South Trade Corridor including the Charbhar Port.
Signs of movement could help cool tensions. Failure would aggravate fears of devastating consequences across a region that exports much of the world’s oil.
But the two sides would soon need to delve into technical negotiations and that’s the hard part of talks. The positive is that both Iran and the US are likely on the same page with regards to the end game in these negotiations, and thus could be moving forward.
There is an opportunity to strike a deal that could make the region and the world safer. As John Kerry wrote “there exists a short window for the improbable to happen”.
* Maj Gen Jagatbir Singh, VSM, retired from the Indian Army.