In recent days, Iran and the United States have engaged in two rounds of indirect negotiations, a development that has dominated headlines across major news outlets. While there are hopeful aspects to these discussions, many uncertainties loom large. The historical context of Iran-U.S. relations is fraught with political challenges, and recent tensions have been exacerbated by concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, particularly with the prospect of former President Trump returning to the White House.
Recently, Trump sent a letter to Iranian leaders offering a suggestion for negotiations. Iran has signaled its willingness to discuss nuclear issues, with Oman serving again as a neutral venue for Tehran and Washington representatives to engage in dialogue aimed at reducing tensions, albeit temporarily. To better understand the landscape of these negotiations, it is essential to outline what we know and what remains uncertain.
What We Know
1. Mutual Aversion to War: Both Tehran and Trump appear to be motivated by a desire to avoid a full-scale conflict in the region. Each side has significant interests that they are unwilling to jeopardize.
2. Iran’s Nuclear Rights: Iran considers its right to enrich uranium a fundamental national right. Any proposals that seek to curtail this right are likely to be met with strong resistance, which could ultimately hinder the negotiations.
3. U.S. Concerns on Enrichment Levels: A primary concern for the U.S. is the volume of uranium Iran has enriched. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran currently possesses 274.8 kg (605.8 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. As Trump expressed its main goal, “I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.”
4. Historical Context Matters: Iran’s collective memory significantly influences its perception of the U.S. The legacy of the 1953 coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and American backing for the Pahlavi monarchy has created deep-seated mistrust. Additionally, Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani have further entrenched negative perceptions of U.S. intentions among Iranians.
5. Internal U.S. Dynamics: There is a complex interplay of viewpoints within the Trump administration, ranging from isolationists to proponents of military engagement. Different factions will inevitably shape foreign policy outcomes, particularly in relation to Iran.
6. Gamebreaker Interests: Israel and Netanyahu are not happy about what is going on between Iran and the USA. They prefer to attack Iran and pull the legs of the USA into this quagmire. They tried and will try to depart Iran and Trump in two different ways. They try to securitize Iran for Washington. On the other hand, they attack Iran’s interests and cognition regarding the USA to make it impossible for Tehran and Washington to deal. This is one of the reasons Netanyahu attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus on 1st April 2024. Another example is Benjamin Netanyahu discussed the Libyan model for dismantling Iran’s nuclear program during a recent meeting with Donald Trump to affect Iranian perception.
Other US domestic and international actors who were removed from Iran-US negotiations also want to play a more important role in this issue.
What We Don’t Know
1. Control Over Domestic and International Influences: Can Trump effectively manage internal and external actors that may disrupt negotiations? This includes various factions within the U.S. government, Israeli interests, and European allies.
2. Potential Military Strikes: Is there still a possibility of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, even if a deal is reached?
3. Influence of Vance and Witkoff Teams: How capable are the teams led by Vance and Witkoff in convincing Trump to pursue a diplomatic course?
4. Economic Guarantees for Iran: How can Iran secure assurances regarding its economic interests in any agreement with the U.S.?
5. Future of Snapback Sanctions: What will happen to the snapback mechanism, which allows for the automatic reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran?
6. Clarity of U.S. Objectives: The lack of clarity surrounding U.S. aims in these negotiations—whether strategic ambiguity or miscommunication—raises questions about the sincerity and feasibility of reaching a consensus.
The answers to these uncertainties will significantly shape the trajectory of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. As both nations navigate this complex landscape, understanding the interplay of known factors and lingering questions will be crucial in determining the future of their relationship.
