As the United States and Iran prepare to re-engage in negotiations, the atmosphere is charged with heightened tensions and a palpable lack of trust.
The talks, originally scheduled for July 10 in Oslo, have been postponed, likely to occur next week, according to sources cited by RFE/RL.
These discussions, as reported by American Military News, will signify a potential revival of nuclear diplomacy between the two long-standing adversaries. This comes just weeks after Iranian nuclear sites were targeted by joint Israeli-US air strikes. The attack by Israel on Iran was launched on June 13, a mere two days before Tehran and Washington were due to hold a sixth round of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Subsequently, US President Donald Trump authorized the United States' participation with Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities. Following this, Washington facilitated a cease-fire agreement to halt the hostilities. In a July 8 opinion piece for the Financial Times, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi expressed skepticism about further engagement, questioning how Tehran could "trust further engagement" after their "good will [was] reciprocated with an attack by two nuclear-armed militaries."
While President Trump has mentioned the prospect of a "permanent deal" with Iran, he has yet to detail the specifics of such an agreement. However, his recent actions indicate a shift from managing immediate crises to a more comprehensive strategy. This strategy aims to secure a deal addressing Iran's nuclear program, its regional influence, and the broader security architecture of the Middle East.
Despite the 12-day war with Israel, Iran maintains its commitment to diplomacy. It has, however, requested assurances that any agreement will prevent Israel from initiating further attacks. Since the cease-fire was implemented on June 24, Trump has given conflicting signals about the viability of a deal with Iran, considering the current status of its nuclear program.
Trump asserts that the strikes "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran, on the other hand, admits to extensive damage to the sites but remains resolute in continuing its nuclear program and, crucially, uranium enrichment.
Despite losing leverage after the strikes, Iran still holds some bargaining chips. Prior to the strikes, Iran had accumulated over 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent, just shy of weapons-grade, and reportedly relocated some of it to undisclosed locations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) admits to being unaware of the location of all this material.
In a concerning development, Iran has halted cooperation with inspectors and insinuated that information shared by the UN nuclear watchdog may have facilitated the strikes. This raises fears that Iran could be inching towards a complete withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, Trump has cautioned that he will authorize another bombing campaign if Iran recommences high-level uranium enrichment.
Both Tehran and Washington continue to express their preference for diplomacy, but arguably, Iran needs a deal more urgently than the United States. Without an agreement, Iran faces not only the threat of further military action but also the potential imposition of UN sanctions, as threatened by European powers.
The forthcoming talks in Oslo, whether they result in substantial progress or merely serve to buy time, will undoubtedly navigate a minefield of mistrust, missed opportunities, and mutual threats. Both parties continue to engage in dialogue, but the narrowing window for a deal may finally be closing for good.
Login