Inside Trump's high stakes nuclear gamble with Iran
By Samia Nakhoul, Humeyra Pamuk and Parisa Hafezi
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump blindsided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his decision to immediately open negotiations with Iran last month. Now, the talks hinge on winning key concessions that would prevent the Islamic Republic ever developing a nuclear bomb, eight sources said.
The pivot to negotiations with Iran in April was a shock for Netanyahu, who had flown to Washington seeking Trump's backing for military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and learned less than 24 hours before a joint White House press event that U.S. talks with Iran were starting within days, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Tehran's leadership remains deeply concerned that Netanyahu may launch a strike - deal or no deal, a senior Iranian security official, said.
However, in just three weeks, the U.S. and Iran have held three rounds of talks aimed at preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon in return for sanctions relief. A fourth round is expected to take place in Rome soon.
For this story, Reuters spoke to officials and diplomats from all sides of the negotiations who disclosed previously unreported details under discussion. All requested anonymity to speak about delicate ongoing conversations.
An initial framework under discussion preserves the core of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) - scrapped by Trump in 2018 during his first term, eight sources said.
A deal may not look radically different to the former pact, which he called the worst in history, but would extend duration to 25 years, tighten verification, and expand so-called sunset clauses that pause but don't completely dismantle aspects of Iran's nuclear program, all the sources said.
Under the terms being discussed, Iran would limit stockpile size and centrifuge types, and dilute, export or seal its 60 percent uranium stock under unprecedented International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny - all in exchange for substantial sanctions relief, all the sources said.
The U.S. State Department, Iran's foreign ministry and Netanyahu's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Dennis Ross, a former negotiator under both Republicans and Democrats, said that any new agreement must go further than the JCPOA by imposing a permanent, structural change in Tehran's nuclear capabilities - shrinking its infrastructure to the point where developing a bomb is no longer a practical option.
"Anything less would leave the threshold threat intact," he told Reuters.
But several red lines are emerging that negotiators will have to circumvent to reach a deal and avert future military action.
Foremost is the question of Iran's capacity to enrich uranium, something Washington and Israel say must stop entirely, leaving Iran reliant on imported uranium for Bushehr, its only existing nuclear power plant, located on the Gulf coast.
Netanyahu is demanding 'zero enrichment' and a Libya-style deal that dismantles Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Iran says its right to enrich is not negotiable. However the size of the uranium stockpile, shipping stocks out of the country and the number of centrifuges are under discussion, three Iranian officials said.
Under proposals discussed in rounds of talks in April, Iran would cap enrichment at 3.67%, in line with the JCPOA, all the sources said, including three Iranian officials. Tehran is also open to granting the IAEA expanded access to its nuclear sites, the Iranian sources said.
The proposals do not seek to dismantle Tehran's nuclear infrastructure entirely as Israel and some U.S. officials want, but aim to lock in permanent constraints on uranium enrichment that deter any breakout, the sources said.
U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff appeared to acknowledge that position in comments last week, but later said Iran must "stop and eliminate" enrichment.
One way out could be for Iran to accept long breaks to the enrichment program, through an extension of sunset clauses, said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and the founding director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
"The Iranians, if they were smart, they would settle for much longer sunset clauses going into the future," Vatanka said, emphasizing the importance of each side being able to claim victory in the talks.
Another possible compromise could involve Iran retaining minimal enrichment, with 5,000 centrifuges, while importing the rest of the enriched uranium, possibly from Russia, one of the three Iranian sources, a senior security official, told Reuters.
In return for limits on enrichment, Tehran has demanded watertight guarantees Trump would not again ditch a nuclear pact, the three Iranian officials said.
Among the red lines mandated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is reducing the amount of enriched uranium it stores to below the level agreed in the 2015 deal, the three sources said. Iran has been able to "significantly" increase the amount of uranium it can enrich to 60% purity, the IAEA said in December.
The JCPOA only permitted Iran to accumulate enriched uranium produced by its first generation IR-1 centrifuges, but now Iran is using far more advanced models banned under the 2015 deal.
A senior regional source close to Tehran said the current debate over Iran's uranium stockpiles centers on whether Iran "will keep a portion of it - diluted - inside the country while sending another portion abroad, possibly to Russia."
According to the source, Iran has even floated the idea of selling enriched uranium to the United States.
Iran currently operates around 15,000 centrifuges. Under the JCPOA Iran was allowed to operated around 6,000.
"Essentially, the negotiations are shaping into a 'JCPOA 2' with some additions that would allow Trump to present it as a victory, while Iran could still keep its right to enrichment," the senior Iranian official said.
Another sticking point relates to Iran's ballistic missile manufacturing capacity. Washington and Israel say Iran should stop making missiles. Iran counters that it has a right to self defense. One Iranian official previously told Reuters it would not go beyond the requirements of the 2015 deal, offering only to avoid building missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads as a "gesture of goodwill."
Washington is pressing to include the ballistic missile program in the talks, but Tehran "continues to reject any discussion," said one regional security official. "The problem", he added, "is that without addressing the missile issue, Trump cannot claim that the new deal goes beyond the JCPOA."
Former negotiator Ross points out the contradiction: Trump abandoned the JCPOA for being too weak, and as a result now faces a reality where Tehran stands at the threshold of nuclear weapons capability.
"Accepting a deal that mirrors or softens the original would be politically indefensible," he said, suggesting a deal must slash centrifuges from 20,000 to 1,000, ship out all enriched stockpiles, and impose intrusive, penalty-backed inspections.
STRIKE RISK
Vatanka, the analyst, likened Iran's current predicament to the 1988 decision by the regime's founder Ruhollah Khomeini to accept a ceasefire with Iraq - a moment he famously likened to drinking "the bitter chalice of poison"
"It's about survival," Vatanka said. "It's not capitulation."
Diplomats say Netanyahu sees a rare opening: last year's military campaigns crippled Iran's air defenses, and decimated Hezbollah's missile arsenal - Tehran's primary deterrent.
"This is a historic window for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear sites," said an official in the Middle East. The United States he said, opposes such a move for several reasons - chief among them the concerns of Gulf Arab states, which Washington cannot ignore given its deep strategic and economic ties in the region.
"Still, it must weigh Israel's security calculations," he said. "So while the U.S. may not take part directly, it could offer indirect support. It would be a difficult operation for Israel - but not an impossible one."
The U.S. military has surged assets in recent weeks to reinforce the Middle East. The Pentagon has deployed six B-2 bombers to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia - a location used in the past to support its military operations in the Middle East.
Additionally, the U.S. currently has two aircraft carriers in the region and has moved in air defense systems from Asia.
Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat and Farsi-speaking Middle East expert, warned that a strike may slow Iran's program, but won't eliminate it. "You cannot bomb know-how," he said. "The knowledge is there. Iran has mastered uranium enrichment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Never use violence': Camp Pendleton Marines could be deployed to LA protests as governor continues to push back
SAN DIEGO (FOX 5/KUSI) — President Trump is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles after two days of clashes between immigration authorities and demonstrators following several raids across the city, and the Secretary of Defense has put Camp Pendleton Marines on high alert to be deployed if needed. Governor Newsom has been vocal Saturday, taking to X to push back against President Trump's orders to deploy the state National Guard, saying, in part, 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully.' Federal agents conducting immigration raid in Los Angeles County; protest quickly erupts While protestors and federal immigration authorities in riot gear continued to clash Saturday and tear gas and smoke filled the air on and off, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, posted on X Saturday night he was mobilizing the National Guard immediately to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles, and placed active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert to be mobilized 'if violence continues.' Governor Newsom responded on X, saying, 'the Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behavior.' It began Friday when ICE and federal immigration authorities raided several businesses in the Los Angeles area and people took to the streets to push back. Large groups of protestors gathered near the site of the raids on Friday and again on Saturday. Trump deploying California National Guard over governor's objections to LA to quell protests Law enforcement in riot gear and gas masks were seen blocking streets, firing tear gas and smoke bombs as protestors continued to gather, in some cases throwing cement pieces and firing off fireworks. Watch a live feed of the scene of ICE activity in Paramount here. Viewer discretion is advised. This is developing. Stay with FOX 5/KUSI for the latest updates Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

an hour ago
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

an hour ago
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
IRMO, S.C. -- Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees to end up less than a decade later talking about their journey on a plush love seat in the family's three-bedroom suburban American home. He and his wife dreamed of bringing her niece to the United States to share in that bounty. Maybe she could study to become a doctor and then decide her own path. But that door slams shut on Monday as America put in place a travel ban for people from Afghanistan and a dozen other countries. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' President Donald Trump signed the ban Wednesday. It is similar to one in place during his first administration but covers more countries. Along with Afghanistan, travel to the U.S. is banned from Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump said visitors who overstay visas, like the man charged in an attack that injured dozens of demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, are a danger to the country. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which isn't included in the ban. The countries chosen for the ban have deficient screening of their citizens, often refuse to take them back and have a high percentage of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire, Trump said. The ban makes exceptions for people from Afghanistan on Special Immigrant Visas who generally worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade war there. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. It is a path Sharafoddin took with his wife and son out of Afghanistan walking on those mountain roads in the dark then through Pakistan, Iran and into Turkey. He worked in a factory for years in Turkey, listening to YouTube videos on headphones to learn English before he was resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia. His son is now 11, and he and his wife had a daughter in the U.S. who is now 3. There is a job at a jewelry maker that allows him to afford a two-story, three-bedroom house. Food was laid out on two tables Saturday for a celebration of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday. Sharafoddin's wife, Nuriya, said she is learning English and driving — two things she couldn't do in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. 'I'm very happy to be here now, because my son is very good at school and my daughter also. I think after 18 years they are going to work, and my daughter is going to be able to go to college,' she said. It is a life she wanted for her niece too. The couple show videos from their cellphones of her drawing and painting. When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, their niece could no longer study. So they started to plan to get her to the U.S. at least to further her education. Nuriya Sharafoddin doesn't know if her niece has heard the news from America yet. She hasn't had the heart to call and tell her. 'I'm not ready to call her. This is not good news. This is very sad news because she is worried and wants to come,' Nuriya Sharafoddin said. While the couple spoke, Jim Ray came by. He has helped a number of refugee families settle in Columbia and helped the Sharafoddins navigate questions in their second language. Ray said Afghans in Columbia know the return of the Taliban changed how the U.S. deals with their native country. But while the ban allows spouses, children or parents to travel to America, other family members aren't included. Many Afghans know their extended families are starving or suffering, and suddenly a path to help is closed, Ray said. 'We'll have to wait and see how the travel ban and the specifics of it actually play out,' Ray said. 'This kind of thing that they're experiencing where family cannot be reunited is actually where it hurts the most.' The Taliban have criticized Trump for the ban, with their top leader Hibatullah Akhundzada saying the U.S. was now the oppressor of the world. 'Citizens from 12 countries are barred from entering their land — and Afghans are not allowed either,' he said on a recording shared on social media. 'Why? Because they claim the Afghan government has no control over its people and that people are leaving the country. So, oppressor! Is this what you call friendship with humanity?'