Geneva/Vienna – High-stakes negotiations between the United States and Iran regarding Tehran’s nuclear program concluded in Geneva on , with Omani mediators reporting “significant progress.” Talks are scheduled to resume at a technical level in Vienna next week, according to the Omani foreign ministry.
Despite the optimistic assessment from mediators, there is currently no independent confirmation that the two sides have narrowed their differences on core issues. These include Iran’s right to enrich uranium and the future of its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The fundamental disagreements remain a significant hurdle to any lasting agreement.
The talks in Geneva were characterized as “intense and lengthy” by Iranian officials. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that further discussions would take place within the week, signaling a continued commitment to the diplomatic process. However, the brevity of the second session of talks has prompted observers to suggest that the negotiations are facing considerable challenges.
Reports indicate that the US negotiating team, led by Steve Witkoff, expressed disappointment with the initial proposals presented by Iran. This dissatisfaction underscores the significant gap that remains between the two countries’ positions. The US is seeking permanent guarantees that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, a goal that Tehran consistently denies pursuing.
Adding to the complexity, US media reports suggesting that Iran would be required to end all uranium enrichment and transfer its existing stockpile abroad drew a sharp rebuke from Iranian officials. These reports appear to have touched upon a particularly sensitive point, as the right to enrich uranium domestically is viewed by Iran as a matter of national sovereignty, a concession previously acknowledged by the US in the 2015 nuclear deal.
The negotiations were briefly interrupted when Witkoff had to depart Geneva to meet with Ukrainian negotiators, highlighting the competing demands on US diplomatic resources and the broader geopolitical landscape influencing the talks. This interruption, while seemingly minor, underscored the multifaceted nature of US foreign policy and the pressures faced by its negotiators.
The US is demanding robust inspection mechanisms and permanent limitations on Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also raised concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile program, stating that its refusal to discuss the issue is problematic. This position has been met with resistance from Iran, which views its missile program as purely defensive and insists it will not be included in the current negotiations.
At the heart of the dispute lies the question of Iran’s future enrichment capacity. The US reportedly seeks to limit Iran to minimal enrichment levels, sufficient only for medical purposes at the Tehran research reactor, a facility originally supplied by the US in 1967. However, this proposal clashes with Iran’s insistence on maintaining its sovereign right to enrich uranium.
Complicating matters further, former US President Trump claimed last June that US military action had effectively destroyed Iran’s three main nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, rendering them incapable of producing highly enriched uranium. However, Tehran has refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to assess the extent of the damage, raising questions about the veracity of these claims and the current state of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The IAEA estimates that Iran currently possesses 400kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity – close to weapons-grade – and 8,000kg of uranium enriched to 20% or below. The fate of these stockpiles remains a key point of contention. Iran has proposed down-blending the highly enriched uranium within the country, while the US has not ruled out the possibility of its transfer to Russia or the US, a concession that would likely require significant sanctions relief.
One Iranian official in Geneva firmly rejected any demands for the complete cessation of enrichment, the dismantling of nuclear facilities, or the transfer of uranium stocks to the US. This statement underscores the firm red lines established by Iran in the negotiations.
The talks are unfolding against a backdrop of heightened military tensions in the region, with the US maintaining a significant military presence, including two aircraft carrier strike groups, attack aircraft, and submarines equipped with Tomahawk missiles. This deployment is widely seen as a demonstration of US resolve and a signal of its willingness to use force if necessary.
The US military buildup has also drawn criticism from some quarters, with Democrats in Congress calling for a vote on the use of military force. An Associated Press poll this week revealed that a majority of Americans (56%) do not trust the current administration to make the right decision regarding military intervention.
The IAEA’s Director General, Rafael Grossi, is playing an increasingly important role in the negotiations, as his verification of any future agreement is crucial to ensuring its credibility and enforceability. His involvement is seen as essential for building trust and providing technical assurances to both sides.
Beyond the nuclear issue, Iran has reiterated its refusal to discuss its ballistic missile program or its support for regional “resistance groups.” These issues, while not directly related to the nuclear agreement, remain significant sources of concern for the US and its allies.
The path forward remains uncertain. While Omani mediators have reported progress, the fundamental disagreements between the US and Iran remain substantial. The resumption of talks in Vienna next week will be a critical test of both sides’ willingness to compromise and find a diplomatic solution to this complex and dangerous situation.
