President Donald Trump expressed optimism on Monday about ongoing nuclear talks with Iran, stating that “very good things” are happening in the negotiations. He noted that Iran has been “very reasonable thus far.” This positive sentiment was shared by Iranian diplomats and Omani mediators, with Iran’s foreign minister calling recent discussions “more serious” and “more detailed” than previous ones. However, behind this hopeful language lies a challenging situation.
Earlier negotiations had made some progress in limiting Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities. However, the latest talks faced setbacks due to the U.S. demand that Iran completely abandon its domestic enrichment program. This demand is seen as unrealistic by many experts and is a long-standing goal of hardliners in U.S. politics. Critics argue that insisting on total capitulation from Iran risks derailing diplomacy and could lead to military conflict.
There are several reasons why Trump should reconsider pushing for a complete halt to Iran’s enrichment. First, this goal has proven to be unachievable and counterproductive. It allows Iran to advance its nuclear program while delaying a more practical agreement that includes verification measures.
In 2003, Iran proposed a comprehensive deal to the U.S. that included limits on its enrichment activities. At that time, Iran had only 164 centrifuges and no stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The Bush administration ignored this offer and insisted on zero enrichment, which ultimately led to a stalled diplomatic process and an expanding Iranian nuclear program.
By 2006, Iran was operating over 3,000 centrifuges, and the U.S. set a precondition for talks that required Iran to halt enrichment before negotiations could begin. This led to further delays and allowed Iran’s program to grow unchecked. When Barack Obama took office in 2009, Iran had increased its centrifuge count to 8,000, with enough low-enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon.
Obama’s administration eventually shifted its stance, agreeing to accept some level of enrichment in exchange for strict limitations and inspections. This change helped pave the way for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran nuclear deal. By the time the deal was implemented, Iran had expanded its program to 19,000 centrifuges and amassed more than 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium.
The ongoing insistence on zero enrichment has only led to a more advanced Iranian nuclear program, delaying meaningful restrictions. This situation is particularly concerning now, as the snapback mechanism that allows for the quick reimposition of UN sanctions on Iran is set to expire soon. If triggered, Iran has warned that it would withdraw from the JCPOA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, further complicating the situation.
The upcoming snapback could create a tense 90-day window for negotiations, but it would likely start from a much worse position than current talks. This escalation could force European nations back into the process, complicating negotiations unnecessarily and diverting attention from securing limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.
Trump is aware of the risks of military conflict with Iran. Despite claims from some groups that Iran is weakened, the country still possesses advanced missile capabilities. Recent events have shown that Iran’s missile technology is more effective than previously thought, raising concerns about the consequences of military action.
The potential for war is grave. Experts warn that military strikes would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program but would likely result in significant loss of life and political fallout for Trump.
Despite the challenges, there remains an opportunity for Trump to strike a strong deal with Iran. If he avoids the mistakes of the past and the unrealistic goal of zero enrichment, he could achieve a more favorable outcome than his predecessors.