Can US-Iran nuclear talks avert war?

Face off: Witkoff (left) and Abbas. — AFP

TALKS between the United States and Iran on curtailing Teheran’s nuclear ambitions face formidable obstacles – deep mutual distrust, maximalist demands and a ticking clock.

“We’re at a fork in the road, heading toward a crisis,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House.

While Trump recently threatened Iran with “bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” he has also signalled a preference for diplomacy.

That reassurance – delivered in the Oval Office alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime advocate for military action – may ease fears across the Arab world.

Even Iran’s regional rivals, from Egypt to the Gulf states, dread the economic and social fallout of another war, especially as Gaza burns.

Trump’s public terms for a deal – that Iran cease all nuclear enrichment, surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium and dismantle its nuclear facilities – are widely seen as a non-starter. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, would likely reject them as a capitulation.

Yet Trump’s history suggests these may be opening gambits rather than final terms.

“He makes ultimate demands, then hunts for a deal,” said a European diplomat familiar with the negotiations.

Trust deficit: A woman walking past a mural depicting a mock version of the Great Seal of the United States, with the eagle holding syringes and ammunition cartridges in its talons and a Star of David painted above with other drugs and firearms nearby, painted on the outer walls of the former US embassy in Teheran, Iran. — AFP

The talks, involving Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, may proceed directly or through intermediaries – a procedural distinction that matters less than the substance.

As Abbas put it, the effort is “as much an opportunity as it is a test” – a trial of whether Teheran will accept permanent nuclear limits in exchange for sanctions relief.

Time is not on diplomacy’s side.

By late July, European powers must decide whether to reimpose punishing UN sanctions on Iran – a leverage point that expires on Oct 18.

Though Iran already staggers under US sanctions, the return of multilateral measures could cripple its economy further.

“This is the West’s last big stick,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director for the International Crisis Group. “If sanctions snap back, Iran says it will quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). And that could mean war.”

Israel has vowed to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran at any cost.

A withdrawal from the NPT – which takes 90 days – might trigger Israeli airstrikes, backed by the United States, targeting Iran’s nuclear sites.

Such a campaign could provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil facilities and US bases, dragging the region into chaos.

Even now, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admits gaps in its oversight of Iran’s programme.

Teheran has enough near-weapons-grade uranium for six bombs, per IAEA estimates. Without inspections, “the world would be flying blind,” warned a UN official.

European diplomats insist they will reimpose sanctions absent a deal.

But some analysts question whether they can delay the deadline – or if Iran would ever trust Trump, who tore up the 2015 nuclear accord.

“Any new deal must perpetually restrain Iran’s nuclear advancement in return for perpetual economic guarantees,” said Vakil. “And Ali Khamenei, deeply anti-American, won’t believe promises easily.”

Netanyahu’s reference to Libya’s 2003 disarmament – when Muammar Gaddafi abandoned his WMD programmes – hinted at a maximalist US-Israeli stance.

“If Trump seeks to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and end its regional alliances, diplomacy is dead on arrival,” said Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute.

Yet if the goal is simply to block an Iranian bomb, “there’s room for optimism,” Parsi added.

Iran, meanwhile, shows mixed signals.

It has freed some political prisoners – a possible olive branch – but also ramped up militant rhetoric.

“I see signs they’re preparing for war,”* said Vaez, noting regime efforts to rally domestic unity.

Israel’s strikes on Iranian proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria-based forces – have left Teheran bruised but unbowed.

“Iran is weakened, but not weak. And certainly not desperate,” Vaez cautioned.

For Ali Khamenei, the greater danger may lie in concessions.

“Surrendering to sanctions,” he has said, “is worse than enduring them.” — ©2025 The New York Times Company

This article originally appeared in The New York Times