US nuclear conversations with Iran are moving forward

The first meeting between the United States and Iran on its developing nuclear program on Saturday showed a seriousness of the purpose and an attempt to avoid what does not want any side, another war in the Middle East. They will talk again next Saturday, but hard work is ahead, such as hard-loudspeakers in both countries, and Israel is expected to block any deal.

If the first nuclear agreement, which arrived in 2015, was caused by Iran’s desire to get rid of the punishment of financial sanctions, these talks have a greater urgent need. Iran, abused by Israel and with its regional proxies, still wants financial relief. But he also understands that the Islamic Republic itself is also threatened and that President Trump, who reached the first agreement because he thought he was very weak, may not block Iran to face “bombing those who have never seen before”.

And Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave his negotiators at least one last chance to exchange Iran’s nuclear ambitions for constant security.

Talks in Oman also promised some effectiveness. The 2015 agreement was hit between Iran and the six countries – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, with the European Union playing the role of mediator – and it took two years.

This time the talks are bilateral, with Europeans, but also Russia and China on the sidelines. And although the United States remains “the Great Satan” for Ayatollah Khamenei, it also holds the key to restricting Israel and ensuring any constant settlement. While Iran insisted on indirect conversations through Oman and Mr Trump in direct conversations, the two sides managed to inflate the issue, with his special envoy, Mr. Trump, Steve Witkoff, speaking directly to Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Abas Abas.

“This is as good as it gets,” said Ali Vaez, Iran’s project manager for the international crisis group. “They could have stumbled, but they agreed to meet again. They met in the end and agreed on the final goal.”

It is important that Mr Trump and Mr Witkoff reported that their actual minimum line ensures that Iran can never build a nuclear weapon – despite harsh demands from Trump officials before talking that Iran completely disassemble its nuclear program as well as its nuclear program.

Iran had made it clear that such broad demands would leave it defenseless and end the conversations before they started. The restriction of the target to ensure that Iran can never build a nuclear bomb, if the administration sticks with it, will strongly enhance the possibility of success in the conversations.

“The Iranians came prepared for more than one icebreaker, but with the expectation of breaking logjam with the US and most importantly, to hear immediately what the actual US minimum is,” said Vali Nasr, a professor at the School of International Studies Johns Hopkins. “If it is not a weapon, then they can negotiate levels of enrichment, inspections and so on, but Iran does not want to get into a situation where it cannot handle and risk more sanctions and war,” he said. “What Iran wants is quite clear – reliable ratification relief and stuck agreement.”

Iran insists that its nuclear program is exclusively political, but has enriched a lot of celestial closer to the quality of weapons to make at least six bombs, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Organization, which implements the Iranian nuclear non -propagation condition.

Despite their mistrust of Mr Trump, the Iranians believe that they would be better able to guarantee the viability of an agreement that is making and facing its own Republican hard ports, Mr Nasr said. The Iranians never trusted former President Biden “to follow and avoid being undermined by Congress,” he said.

“We are at the best place we could be after this meeting,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North African program at Chatham House. There were positive statements on both sides around a plan to proceed, and said “a mutual understanding of the required urgent character, the opportunity presented and the signs of realism on both sides”.

Added: “Of course hard things are ahead.”

A serious agreement will be extremely complicated and technical, and it will take time. It would also have to survive the efforts to undermine tough delicacies in both countries and Israel. Israel, which opposed the 2015 agreement, wants a more comprehensive disarmament of Iran and continues to talk about the need to hit it militarily now, when the regime is weak and its air deficiencies have been seriously reconciled from Israeli air raids.

Iran has previously vowed to destroy Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants Iran to no longer be able to enrich any heavens at all. Israel, referring to Hamas’ attack on Gaza, has wrongly destroyed Iranian attorneys, including Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and wants to try to ensure that Iran cannot rebuild them.

But Iran may also be encouraged that Mr Trump announced the talks at the Oval Office next to Mr Netanyahu, who did not seem or sounds very pleased with them. Iran will see “a powerful message from Trump that it does not belong to Netanyahu,” Mr Nasr said.

The hope is that a next meeting or two can create an intermediate agreement that gives confidence on both sides to proceed, by short -term measures on both sides, as long as the conversations continue. They could include the Iranian agreement to freeze uranium enrichment and allow more inspections in exchange for Washington by suspending some of the “maximum pressure” sanctions.

Iran is likely to insist on a step -by -step process that could take several years, Mr Nasr said: “To help the deal develop roots before someone else enters the office and tried to overthrow it.” A larger process will also provide more security to Iran.

Still, Iran has no reason to stretch the conversations itself. “Iran’s leverage is his nuclear enrichment and most of the time will not give them more leverage,” Mr Vaez said. And then there is “the Snapback Sanctions Time Bomb”.

These sanctions, suspended under the 2015 Agreement, can be restored if any signatory – in this case, Europeans – decide that there is no new agreement or significant progress towards one. But this must happen before October 18, when the “Snap Back” feature ends. Employees say that Europeans are investigating if this deadline may be delayed, but the mechanism to be done is unclear.

In any case, analysts agree, Iran does not want to be accused of failing to fail. If they fail and the war secures, the regime wants to be able to blame American misery and bad faith.

Thus, if an agreement can be made, Iran will want to guarantee this time that it will be durable and will deliver a commercial commitment in a meaningful and long -term way, Ms Vakil said. Iran will want to know “how Trump can guarantee the protection that other presidents could not do”.

And the United States, he said, will want to know what guarantees that Iran can provide Israel’s security and the stability of the larger Middle East.

“A deal must be mutually beneficial, but it requires great confidence and accountability along the way both sides simply do not have now,” he said.