Reyhane Hejazi - Nearly eight months after walking away from the negotiating table, Tehran and Washington have re-engaged in indirect talks mediated by Badr Albusaidi and the Sultanate of Oman. This new phase of diplomacy has taken on added significance with the presence of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose participation in Geneva has given the discussions a distinctly technical dimension.
The Iranian delegation, led by Seyed Abbas Araghchi, has already completed two rounds of talks in Muscat and Geneva. Official accounts suggest the first round focused largely on testing political intent and seriousness, while the second outlined a broad framework for moving forward. The third round, set to take place in Geneva, is expected to move beyond generalities into what Grossi has described as “concrete and operational” discussions.
The Three Pillars of a Potential Agreement
Based on public statements and diplomatic briefings, the emerging framework rests on three core pillars:
Nuclear constraints and verification mechanisms
Sanctions relief
Broader economic interests and mutual benefits
The IAEA’s direct involvement reflects an effort to expedite and technically structure the nuclear component of the deal. Key questions now under discussion include:
What level and scope of uranium enrichment would be permitted?
How would Iran’s existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium be handled?
Under what mechanism would inspectors regain access to sites such as Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan?
How can a verification regime be designed to be “sufficiently credible and robust”?
Grossi has stated that the essential elements of an agreement are well understood, though disagreements persist over the scale and depth of restrictions. He has also emphasized that there is no evidence of an active, systematic nuclear weapons program—before or after recent attacks—though political mistrust remains central.
The Core Dispute: Enrichment on Iranian Soil
The principal fault line remains uranium enrichment. Washington has pushed for either its suspension or strict limitation, while Tehran considers continued enrichment on its own soil a non-negotiable red line. The current discussions appear less focused on eliminating enrichment altogether and more on defining a formula that preserves Iran’s legal position while effectively mitigating proliferation risks.
Some U.S. media reports suggest figures close to Donald Trump may be open to limited enrichment under strict safeguards—a shift that, if confirmed, could narrow the gap between the parties.
The Shadow of Military Escalation
Simultaneously, expanded U.S. military deployments around Iran have injected urgency into the talks. Washington’s declared strategy of “peace through strength” sends mixed signals: an emphasis on diplomacy coupled with repeated references to military options.
This ambiguity complicates trust-building efforts. For Tehran, the political cost of flexibility rises under visible military pressure. For both sides, however, the risks of miscalculation—particularly in the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz—underscore the value of a swift diplomatic outcome. A single unintended incident could escalate rapidly.
Lessons from the JCPOA
The U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action demonstrated that maximum pressure and military measures may delay technical progress but do not necessarily produce sustainable transparency. The JCPOA’s architecture—capping enrichment levels, reducing stockpiles, redesigning the Arak reactor, and implementing unprecedented verification measures—was designed not on political trust, but on enforceable technical constraints.
The collapse of that framework increased uncertainty. The central question now is whether a modernized, technically updated version of that “win-win” formula can be reconstructed under altered geopolitical realities.
Economics as a Catalyst for Stability
Beyond nuclear technicalities, long-term sustainability may depend on tangible economic dividends. A framework restoring Iran’s energy exports to stable levels—paired with international investment in infrastructure, petrochemicals, transportation, and renewable energy—could generate mutual dependency and raise the cost of confrontation.
Without credible sanctions relief and economic normalization, even the most technically sound agreement risks fragility.
Is a Rapid Deal Realistic?
Despite significant disagreements, several realities stand out:
The diplomatic channel remains open.
The broad contours of a deal are identifiable.
Differences are real but potentially manageable.
Both sides understand the high cost of war.
Iran’s foreign minister has reiterated that, just as technical mechanisms were successfully designed in 2015 to guarantee the peaceful nature of the nuclear program, similar—perhaps even more refined—mechanisms can be developed today.
The negotiations now proceed along a narrow line: balancing what is legally legitimate, what is proliferation-safe, and what is politically defensible in both Tehran and Washington.
If that balance can be achieved, the third round of talks could mark more than incremental progress—it could represent a strategic turning point. If not, a return to pressure and confrontation may produce consequences neither side can fully control.
Your Comment