Nuclear Politics: US-Iran and The ‘Illusive Deal’

Dr Marwan Asmar

Despite the seeming sidedness and intransigence between Iran and the US, their fifth round of nuclear talks with Oman as mediator, is expected to be held in Rome on Friday.

Both US and Iranian delegates have been “public” in their approach. The Americans, led by US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff wants Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons and end its uranium enrichment, a process that would allow it to develop an atom bomb.

The American delegates say this is a “redline” they will not budge away from. However, the Iranians led by the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi insist that they must be allowed to enrich because this is part of their sovereignty and national interest.

On the face of it, both positions appear to be diametrically-opposed. The Americans insist on one thing while the Iranians on another with US president Donald Trump’s team believing it would be extremely dangerous for the world to allow Iran access to nuclear weapons.

However, the first round of US-Iran talks started on 12 April in the Omani capital of Muscat and since then three other round of talks were held, including one in the Oman Embassy in Rome. They were described as “positive” and with the exception of the fourth round, they were seen as introductory.

This time around the talks are in Muscat again, on 22 May, 2025 with the full teams taking part at the behest of the Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi as mediating between the two sides who are in two separate rooms and not directly talking to each other.

Despite all difficulties and intractable positions, the new republican administration in the White House is determined to iron-out a new nuclear deal with Tehran after the Trump took out the US out of the deal, officially termed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015 under the auspices of the UN with the backing of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in 2015.

Trump forced the US to exit out of the deal in 2018 and many argue this move allowed Iran to continue to enrich its uranium at 60 percent, much shorter to the 90-percent-mark for a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal, and for the first time, capped Iran’s enrichment facilities at 6.7 percent, and since 2018 it moved freely in its ability to obtain weapons-grade material whilst wasting months, years and even decades of negotiations.

Back to the present. Outwardly, the Trump administration wants “nuclear-dismantellment” and zero-enrichment. But the fact that the Americans held five meetings with Iranian delegates mean they recognize what Iran is saying about its nuclear program, that it is there for “peaceful” energy reasons and have consequently stressed that if Tehran wants enriched uranium for such purposes it can import from different world countries.

The US administration believes this would check Iranian nuclear capability and prevent them from obtaining the nuclear bomb. But one point stands out and is being downplayed and that is the fact Iran is well-advanced in its nuclear program with at least five nuclear facilities across the country that are well known and inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency which is a UN watchdog.

The fact that the two sides are meeting on a regular basis sends positive signals despite the recent comments made by Iran’s top spiritual leader Ali Khamenei who is pessimistic about a deal being hammered out, if the United States doesn’t adopt a more flexible and less stringent approach on the Iranian nuclear file, enrichment issue and the removal of sanctions on the country reimposed by Trump when he got the US out of the deal in his first tenure as president in the White House.

These are the hurdles both sides are facing, points the make Iranian decision-makers not at all optimistic. But Trump has so far been using a “carrot-and-stick” approach. He has warned the Iranians that he would be prepared to attack Iran, if it doesn’t sign a deal soon and put the onus on  Israel for the attack that would probably be a joint one with the US.

Netanyahu unhappy!

This point made Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu very happy in the month or so prior to 12 April. Then Netanyahu geared himself up for an impending attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and was therefore in great shock to hear that Iranian-US talks were in the pipeline and mediated by Oman.

He was in double-shock because the presumably US-Israeli strike was being pushed back in favor of international diplomacy. It is here as well, the cracks between Trump and Netanyahu begun to show still because the US president had already started to portray himself as a man of peace, not a warmonger and wanted to end the war in Ukraine and Gaza and was talking to Hamas, an arch-enemy of the Israeli prime minister with an eye on the Nobel peace prize.

To Netanyahu talking to the Iranians was just one more spike in the Israeli heart because it meant US-Israeli interests were diverging as underpinned by the current talks with Iran and its erstwhile allies like the Houthis which the US planes bombed to no success in a military campaign that started in March, April and stopped on 6 May because it achieved little success and was exorbitantly expensive.

Even if they don’t achieve immediate breakthroughs, the Iran-US talks are likely to continue for a while because it lies within the tenets of new American foreign policy as espoused by Trump. He is unlikely now to drop the diplomatic towel and go for a series of strikes because he knows of the military capabilities Iranian has. Also, Trump is likely to force Netanyhu’s hand and prevent him for striking that country because of the unforeseen consequences it would generate for the region and the US itself.

This analysis is written by Dr Marwan Asmar, chief editor of the crossfirearabia.com website. 

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026