Diplomacy on the brink: Can U.S. and Iran forge a new nuclear deal?

High-stakes nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have entered a critical phase, with both sides cautiously exploring a framework to avert military conflict while addressing Tehran's nuclear program and Washington's demand for enforceable safeguards.

The talks, mediated by Oman, mark a rare diplomatic engagement since the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated sanctions. Under that deal, Iran had agreed to limit uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. Since 2018, however, Iran has breached JCPOA limits, amassing 274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity – close to weapons-grade levels – while insisting its nuclear ambitions remain peaceful.

U.S. President Donald Trump, now in his second term, has framed the negotiations as a last-ditch effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, warning of military action if diplomacy fails. Two rounds of indirect talks have been held between Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff in Muscat and Rome, with plans for technical experts to draft agreement specifics starting this week. 

Araghchi has emphasized Iran's "red lines," including retaining uranium enrichment capabilities and rejecting demands to dismantle nuclear infrastructure. The U.S. initially pushed for full dismantlement but now appears open to capping enrichment at 3.67 percent, mirroring JCPOA terms – a shift Witkoff briefly endorsed before backtracking.

Divisions within the Trump administration, which to a certain degree explained its inconsistent public statements, have been complicating the path forward. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio advocate dismantling Iran's nuclear program entirely, while pragmatists signal acceptance of monitored enrichment.

Iran, for its part, seeks guarantees against another U.S. withdrawal and sanctions relief that tangibly benefits its economy. "All sanctions should be lifted in a way that benefits the Iranian people," Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday.

Mutual distrust, however, has cast a long shadow over decades of fractured relations, fueled by historical enmities and sharpened by recent provocations. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who denounced talks with the U.S. as "neither logical nor honorable" just two months ago, now cautiously supports negotiations but insists Tehran will retaliate if attacked. 

"We are not pursuing weapons, but if bombed, Iran will have no choice but to reconsider," warned Khamenei's adviser Ali Larijani. For the U.S., skepticism persists over Iran's willingness to accept intrusive inspections or abandon allies like Yemen's Houthis – a goal also sought by the Trump administration.

Opposition from outside the Trump administration also added another layer to the complexity of the talks. Israel, which rejects any deal short of a "Libya-style" dismantlement, has threatened unilateral strikes on Iranian facilities. Trump has attempted to restrain Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stating he prefers diplomacy but warning, Iran is going to face "great danger" if talks collapse. Nonetheless, Israeli officials are still considering a limited attack on Iran, Reuters reported, threatening the collapse of any diplomatic progress.

Despite these hurdles, some analysts believe that the U.S. and Iran's mutual desire to avoid war makes an eventual deal possible. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Princeton University scholar and former Iranian negotiator, identifies five points of convergence: mutual opposition to nuclear weapons, aversion to war, U.S. disavowal of toppling the Iranian leadership, economic incentives, and preference for diplomacy.