logo
Iran-US nuclear talks: What's at stake?

Iran-US nuclear talks: What's at stake?

Observer24-05-2025

Iran and the United States made modest progress during talks in Rome over the future of Iran's nuclear programme, an intermediary said Friday after the fifth round of such discussions.
The two sides met for a little less than three hours and had 'some but not conclusive progress,' Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr al Busaidi said.
The fifth round of Iran-US talks concluded in Rome with some but not conclusive progress. We hope to clarify the remaining issues in the coming days, to allow us to proceed towards the common goal of reaching a sustainable and honourable agreement. From Rome, I wish to thank our Italian friends for hosting us again for the talks and for their strong support for peace and security," he said.
The main issue at stake in the latest round of talks was Washington's demand that Iran halt all nuclear enrichment and dismantle all of its centrifuges. Iran has insisted that it will not give up the right to nuclear enrichment at lower levels as guaranteed by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is trying to find a formula that works, and the fact that the talks did not break up in acrimony was viewed as positive. It also suggests that Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister — Witkoff's counterpart in the discussions — will need to consult with Iran's leadership over how to proceed.
Araghchi said that 'this round was one of the most professional stages of negotiations that we have experienced so far,' according to the Tasnim news agency. 'Our positions are completely clear and we stand by them,' he said, adding: 'It seems that now there is a clearer and more precise understanding of these positions on the American side.'
A senior American official said in a statement that 'the talks continue to be constructive — we made further progress, but there is still work to be done.' Both sides agreed to meet again soon, the official said.
Still, it was clear that the core disagreement over enrichment had not been resolved. Both Iran and the United States have said they want to resolve their decades-old dispute over Iran's nuclear activities, with Tehran exchanging limits on its nuclear program for the lifting of harsh U.S. and international economic sanctions.
Here's what to know about the Iran-U.S. nuclear talks so far.
What happened in previous talks?
At the previous round of talks, in Oman on May 11, Iran proposed the creation of a joint nuclear-enrichment venture involving regional Arab countries and American investments as an alternative to Washington's demand that it dismantle its nuclear program, according to four Iranian officials familiar with the plan.
Araghchi proposed the idea, originally floated in 2007, to Witkoff, according to the Iranian officials.
A spokesperson for Witkoff denied that the proposal had come up. But since then, Witkoff has outlined a harder administration position.
'An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again, that's our red line,' Witkoff said in an interview this month with Breitbart News. 'No enrichment. That means dismantlement, it means no weaponization, and it means that Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan — those are their three enrichment facilities — have to be dismantled.'
Earlier meetings included the nuts-and-bolts expert talks, which brought together nuclear and financial teams from both sides to hash out technical details, such as the monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities and what would happen to its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, along with easing sanctions.
Trump has defined the objective of the negotiations as preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But achieving that goal would not address other concerns about Iran's advanced missile program.
An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghai, has said that the issue of the country's defense and missile abilities had 'not been and will not be raised in indirect negotiations with the United States.'
What's at stake?
The talks have the potential to reshape regional and global security by reducing the chance of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
A deal could also transform Iran's economic and political landscape by easing American sanctions and opening the country to foreign investors.
Both the United States and Israel have vowed that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon; Iran insists that its nuclear program is civilian only.
But Iran has been enriching uranium to around 60% purity, just short of the levels needed to produce a weapon.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and the IAEA has said it has not found signs of weaponization.
If its nuclear facilities are attacked, Iran has said it would retaliate fiercely and would consider leaving the UN Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Iran's economy and the future of its 90 million people are also on the line.
Years of sanctions have created chronic inflation. Now, many Iranians say they feel trapped in a downward spiral and hope that a US-Iran deal would help.
What are the sticking points?
The question of whether to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium has divided Trump's advisers.
Witkoff had earlier described a possible agreement that would allow Iran to enrich uranium at the low levels needed to produce fuel for energy, along with monitoring. But he now says that total dismantlement of Iran's nuclear enrichment program is the American bottom line.
Iran's new proposal entails the establishment of a three-country nuclear consortium in which Iran would enrich uranium to a low grade, below that needed for nuclear weapons, and then ship it to certain Arab countries for civilian use, according to the Iranian officials and news reports.
Iranian officials have said they are willing to reduce enrichment levels to those specified in the 2015 nuclear agreement with the Obama administration — about 3.5% — around the level needed to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.
But in a recent podcast interview, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Iran could have a civilian nuclear program without enriching uranium domestically — by importing enriched uranium, as other countries do.
How did we get here?
The two sides came into the negotiations with deep distrust.
The previous deal between Iran and the United States and other world powers, signed during the Obama administration, was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
It put measures in place to prevent Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program by capping enrichment of uranium at about 3.5%, transferring stockpiles of enriched uranium to Russia, and allowing monitoring cameras and inspections by the IAEA.
Trump unilaterally exited the nuclear deal in 2018. European companies then pulled out of Iran, and banks stopped working with Iran, fearing US sanctions.
About a year after Trump left the agreement, Iran, not seeing any financial benefits, moved away from its obligations and increased its levels of uranium enrichment, gradually reaching 60%.
What comes next?
Iran's supreme leader authorized the talks and said the negotiating team has his support.
But a deal is not necessarily around the corner. The two sides have to find a way out of their impasse over enrichment.
And talks could still break down at the technical level, which was the most challenging part of the previous negotiations.
It is also possible that an interim deal could be reached to freeze uranium enrichment while a permanent deal is hashed out.
This article originally appeared in

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Xi agree to more talks as trade disputes brew
Trump and Xi agree to more talks as trade disputes brew

Observer

time21 hours ago

  • Observer

Trump and Xi agree to more talks as trade disputes brew

WASHINGTON/BEIJING: US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping confronted weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals in a rare leader-to-leader call on Thursday that left key issues to further talks. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary. But Trump said on social media that the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," announcing further lower-level US-China discussions, and that "there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products." He later told reporters: "We're in very good shape with China and the trade deal." The leaders also invited each other to visit their respective countries. The highly anticipated call came in the middle of a dispute between Washington and Beijing in recent weeks over "rare earths" minerals that threatened to tear up a fragile truce in the trade war between the two biggest economies. It was not clear from either countries' statements that the issue had been resolved. A US delegation led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet with their Chinese counterparts "shortly at a location to be determined," Trump said on social media. The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives. Major US stock indexes were higher on Thursday. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets continues to disrupt supplies needed by automakers, computer chip manufacturers and military contractors around the world. Beijing sees mineral exports as a source of leverage - halting those exports could put domestic political pressure on the Republican US president if economic growth sags because companies cannot make mineral-powered products. — Reuters

Is Europe facing civil war?
Is Europe facing civil war?

Observer

timea day ago

  • Observer

Is Europe facing civil war?

Whether the debate is occasioned by a polemical book or a movie like last year's 'Civil War', I consistently take the negative on the question of whether the United States is headed for a genuine civil war. In those debates, it's usually liberals warning that populism or Trumpism is steering the United States towards the abyss. But with European politics the pattern is different: In France and Britain; and among American observers of the continent, a preoccupation with looming civil war tends to be more common among conservatives. For years, figures associated with the French right and French military have warned of an impending civil conflict driven by the country's failure to assimilate immigrants from the Muslim world. (The great reactionary novelist Michel Houellebecq's 'Submission' famously imagines this war being averted by the sudden conversion of French elites to Islam.) Lately there has been a similar discussion around Britain touched off by an essay by military historian David Betz that argues that multicultural Britain is in danger of tearing itself apart and lately taken up by political strategist, Brexit-campaign architect and former Boris Johnson adviser Dominic Cummings in an essay warning that British elites are increasingly fearful of organised violence from nativists and radicalised immigrants alike. When I've written skeptically about scenarios for a US civil war, I've tended to stress several realities: the absence of a clear geographical division between our contending factions; the diminishment, not exacerbation, of racial and ethnic polarisation in the Trump era; the fact that we're rich, aging and comfortable, not poor, young and desperate, giving even groups that hate each other a stake in the system and elites strong reasons to sustain it; the absence of enthusiasm for organised communal violence as opposed to lone-wolf forays. Does the European landscape look different? On some fronts, maybe. Tensions between natives and new arrivals are common on both sides of the Atlantic, but ethnic and religious differences arguably loom larger in Europe than they do in the US: There is more intense cultural separatism in immigrant communities in suburban Paris or Marseilles than in Los Angeles or Chicago, more simmering discontent that easily turns to riots. At the same time, British and French elites have been more successful than American elites at keeping populist forces out of power, but their tools — not just the exclusion of populists from government, but an increasingly authoritarian throttling of free speech — have markedly diminished their own legitimacy among discontented natives. This means that neither underassimilated immigrants nor working-class whites feel especially invested in the system, making multiple forms of political violence more plausible: pitting immigrant or native rebels against the government, or pitting immigrants against natives with the government trying to suppress the conflict, or, finally, pitting different immigrant groups against one another. (English cities have already played host to bursts of Muslim-Hindu violence.) Then, too, Western Europe's economies have grown more sluggishly than America's for the last decade, reducing ordinary people's stake in the current order and encouraging alienation and resistance. Finally, there are arguably geographic concentrations of discontent — in the north of England, or in immigrant-dominated cities that Betz warns could become ungovernable — that don't exist in quite the same way in the US. All of this adds up, I would say, to a useful corrective to the progressive tendency to regard America in the Trump era as a great outlier, uniquely divided and deranged and threatened by factional strife, while liberal politics continues more or less as usual among our respectable and stable European allies. Not so: There are clearly ways in which Europe's problems and divides are deeper than our own, with economic and demographic trends that portend darker possibilities and the establishment attempt to keep populist forces at bay may end up remembered as accelerating liberal Europe's downfall. Yet many of the reasons to doubt the imminence of civil war in America still apply to Western Europe. The continent is more stagnant than the US but still rich, comfortable and aged; there's enthusiasm for rioting but rather less for organised violence; and for all the palpable disillusionment, it is hard to glimpse any elite faction yet emerging — right or left, nativist or 'Islamo-Gauchiste' — that would see violent revolution as an obvious means to its ambitions. Meanwhile, there are distinctive European conditions that make civil war less likely there than in the US: Smaller nations with more centralised political systems generally find it easier to police dissent and there's no Second Amendment or American-style gun culture to challenge the European state's monopoly on force. Ultimately, I agree with British writer Aris Roussinos, a pessimist but not a catastrophist, when he writes that the most likely near-future scenarios involve increasing 'outbursts of violent disorder' but not the kind of collapse of central government authority, complete with ethnic cleansing and refugee flows, that the language of 'civil war' implies. And that imprecision matters: As I've suggested before, if you use a civil-war framing to describe a world where rioting is more commonplace and assassination attempts and random forms of terrorism make a comeback, you're describing realities that big diverse societies often have to live with, using terms that misleadingly or hysterically evoke Antietam or Guernica. I don't think America in the 1960s and 1970s experienced a civil war, even though those were certainly chaotic decades. I don't think modern France, with its long tradition of student protests and urban riots, has existed in a perpetual state of civil war. And as we face a future that's clearly more destabilised than the post-Cold War era, it still behooves us to be realistic about the most plausible scenarios: We are still far more likely to be navigating a more chaotic landscape together, as fellow citizens, than shooting at one another across a sectional divide. — The New York Times

"Good conversation but not conversation that will lead to immediate peace": Trump after talks with Putin
"Good conversation but not conversation that will lead to immediate peace": Trump after talks with Putin

Times of Oman

time2 days ago

  • Times of Oman

"Good conversation but not conversation that will lead to immediate peace": Trump after talks with Putin

Washington, DC: US President Donald Trump held a telephonic conversation with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and discussed Ukraine's attack on Russia's docked airplanes and various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. Trump said that his conversation with Putin was "good" but "not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace." He said that Putin "very strongly" said that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields. In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump stated, "I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields." Trump said that he and Putin also spoke about Iran and noted that time is running out for Iran's decision related to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly. He said that Putin suggested he would participate in talks with Iran and that he could help reach a rapid conclusion. "We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly! I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement. President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time," Trump posted on Truth Social. The talks between the two leaders came after Ukraine and Russia conducted some of the largest drone attacks since the war began nearly three years ago. Ukraine carried out a significant drone attack on Sunday targeting deep inside Russian territory, destroying dozens of nuclear-capable bombers and other military aircraft. Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth will not attend a meeting of 50 defence ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday, which is important for coordinating military aid for Ukraine, Politico reported. It marks the first time in three years that the US Defence Secretary will not attend the meeting. NATO defence ministers and others have regularly held meetings to coordinate funding for Kyiv, and have emerged as an important component of Western aid for Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. However, the Trump administration has maintained distance from the group, handing over leadership to Germany and the UK. Hegseth will be in Brussels for a meeting of NATO defence ministers on Thursday. However, US ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker will attend the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting on his behalf on Wednesday, Politico reported, citing a defence official and two people familiar with their plans, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters. The US Defence Department has cited scheduling issues for his absence in the meeting. In a statement, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said, "Secretary Hegseth's travel schedule precluded attendance at tomorrow's UDCG meeting." She further stated, "The United States is focused on ending the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible, on terms that establish an enduring peace." Earlier on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said US President Donald Trump remains optimistic about the progress being seen amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and urged his counterparts from Russia and Ukraine to talk directly with one another. While addressing a press briefing on Tuesday (local time), Leavitt noted that Russia had handed over a peace plan to the Ukrainian side, and the two nations had agreed on the exchange of prisoners from each other's nations. When asked about Trump's statement on the Russia-Ukraine war following the Ukrainian drone strike, Karoline Leavitt said, "The President's thinking on the Russia-Ukraine war as it stands, I've spoken to him about it just this morning, is he remains positive at the progress that we've seen. Again, he urged both leaders to sit down and talk directly with one another, and they did that. Russia handed over a memorandum of peace, or a peace plan, or a suggestion of one, I understand, to the Ukrainian side. They also agreed upon the exchange of prisoners or hostages from each other's countries." "He remains positive about the progress that we're seeing, but he also is a realist and he realises these are two countries that are at war and have been for a long time because of his predecessor's weakness and incompetence. So he's working hard to solve this conflict. And that's where his mind is right now on it," she added. Russia and Ukraine held a second round of direct talks in Istanbul on Monday. The two nations agreed to swap dead and captured soldiers, The Washington Post reported. However, there was no significant progress towards ending the war or even agreeing to a ceasefire. Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who led the Ukrainian delegation, stated that Russia did not agree to an unconditional ceasefire or a bilateral meeting between the leaders of the two nations. However, both nations agreed to exchange gravely wounded prisoners of war, captives under the age of 25, and the bodies of 6,000 killed soldiers from each side.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store