In the age-old circus of power diplomacy, Washington and Tehran wrapped up their third round of nuclear negotiations on Saturday this time plunging headfirst into the grueling trenches of technical bargaining. (Yes, dear reader, we’re talking about the serious talks now the ones that actually matter.)
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi didn’t mince words:
“Negotiations this time were much more serious than previous ones; we engaged in conversations that were more detailed, more expert-level and more technical.”
Across the ocean, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio moonlighting, it seems, as both diplomat and fortune teller stated that America does not foresee Iran enriching its own uranium. Instead, Rubio suggested Tehran could simply import nuclear fuel for its civilian energy needs. (Because apparently, independence is fine so long as you outsource it.)
For Iran, however, the right to enrich uranium remains non-negotiable a mantra chanted with near-religious devotion.
Both sides have previously described the tone of talks as “positive” a curious choice of word given the ever-looming shadow of US and Israeli threats to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age should Tehran fail to accept “the deal.”
(Positive? Only if you consider a loaded gun on the table a “negotiating tool.”)
This third round dug into the real meat: the specifics of Iran’s nuclear activities where, predictably, the cavern between the two sides remains as wide as ever.
Araghchi’s sober summary tells you all you need to know:
“There are still differences in major issues and in details. Until the next talks, we are both going to have conversations back in our capitals to see how to bring these differences back together.”
Translation: No breakthroughs. No handshakes. Just another round of political charades back home.
Meanwhile, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi confirmed that talks would stagger on next week. (The Middle East’s eternal pastime: scheduling peace talks.)
A Quick Flashback: How We Got Here
Once upon a time in 2015, to be precise the US and its allies inked a deal with Iran known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Under this agreement, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program to peaceful purposes in exchange for the lifting of devastating sanctions that had turned its economy into a smoldering ruin.
Related reading: Trump gives Iran two-month deadline to reach new nuclear deal
Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump ripped up the deal faster than a supermarket tabloid scandal, plunging Iran back into economic misery and turbocharging its uranium enrichment to 60% a hair’s breadth from weapons-grade.
Iran insists red-faced and exasperated that its program remains peaceful. (Meanwhile, the hawks circle, citing percentages.)
In an ironic twist, Trump recently sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei proposing fresh talks, demanding a “new and improved” nuclear agreement with a generous two-month ticking clock attached.
Because nothing says “good faith” like an ultimatum delivered by mail.
What Washington Wants (Or Thinks It Wants)
Trump’s team says they want a “stronger” deal than Obama’s.
Exactly what that means depends on which official you ask and what day of the week it is.
This month, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff suggested Iran need not enrich uranium at all then quickly backpedaled the next day, demanding Tehran eliminate its enrichment program entirely.
Rubio, bouncing like a political pinball, told The Free Press:
“There’s a pathway to a civil, peaceful nuclear program if they want one. But if they insist on enriching, they will be the only country in the world enriching without a weapons program, and that’s problematic.”
Cue the world’s smallest violin. Because actually, countries like Brazil do enrich uranium without building bombs (World Nuclear Association has receipts: WNA Brazil Nuclear Profile). So does the Urenco consortium in Europe also bomb-free, by the way.
Meanwhile, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright was busy in Saudi Arabia talking up a “pathway” for the Kingdom to enrich uranium locally.
(Consistency, apparently, is another casualty of war diplomacy.)
Tehran’s Stand: No Enrichment, No Deal
Predictably, Iran isn’t budging.
Foreign Minister Araghchi declared:
“Iran’s enrichment (program) is a real and genuine matter. We are ready to build trust regarding concerns, but enrichment itself is non-negotiable.”
(Source: Press TV)
Tehran has listed its “red lines,” including an end to American “threatening language” and a demand that Washington stay out of Iran’s defensive military projects especially its beloved ballistic missiles.
Supreme Leader Khamenei, ever the cautious chess master, has warned against both undue optimism and knee-jerk despair regarding negotiations.
Translation: Don’t trust the Americans and don’t burn all bridges, either.
In a carrot-and-stick move, Araghchi dangled a juicy economic offer, suggesting that US companies could stand to earn “tens of billions” if they hopped aboard Iran’s nuclear energy bandwagon.
Capitalism: the ultimate peacemaker?
The Technical Minefield Ahead
Beyond the public fireworks, technical teams on both sides are now saddled with the thankless job of turning political gibberish into something resembling a treaty.
Michael Anton from the State Department will lead America’s technical team 12 experts tasked with haggling over the arcane science of uranium purity, centrifuge design, and sanctions relief.
Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute sums up the mood perfectly:
“Technical talks are challenging. This requires technical expertise to make sure these different ideas can actually become feasible.”
One potential booby trap: Israel’s push for a “Libya-style” deal, demanding Iran dismantle its entire program a recipe guaranteed to turn Tehran’s negotiators into brick walls.
(Remember Libya? Gaddafi gave up his nukes, and within a few years he was dragged through the streets and lynched. Tehran hasn’t forgotten and neither should you.)
Israel’s Fingerprints on the Table
Israel has made no secret of its desire to see Iran’s nuclear program not just limited but annihilated.
Sources familiar with US-Israel relations told CNN that Jerusalem isn’t thrilled about Washington’s flirtation with Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly warned Trump not to let negotiations delay a possible Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites.
Publicly, Trump downplayed the drama:
“I wouldn’t say waved off,” he said, with his signature bravado, “but I’m not in a rush to do it because I think Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily.”
(Ah, the sweet irony. Helping a nation “live happily” by waving bombs at them.)
Final Thoughts: A Deal Hanging by Threads
As the dust settles (temporarily) over Vienna’s polished tables and the chattering classes debate success versus failure, one truth remains:
Iran will never accept a “surrender treaty” dressed up as a nuclear accord.
And Washington torn between Israel’s demands, Saudi ambitions, and its own blundering foreign policy instincts may never offer anything else.
As history keeps proving, the road from this diplomacy to disaster is paved with hubris and, often, uranium.
.
