US-Iran nuclear talks: A win-win deal could avoid war
A fourth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the US is reportedly set to take place this coming weekend in Oman. Three previous rounds of negotiations in Muscat and Rome last month appeared constructive, bringing the two sides closer to common ground.
US President Donald Trump has expressed confidence that “a deal is going to be made”, noting that enhanced inspections could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb: “You have to verify times 10.”
This policy direction and the progress in talks have angered Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declaring that only the “Libya model” would be acceptable - a scheme that dismantled the state’s nuclear programme and paved the way for military intervention and the country’s destruction.
According to a report in the Washington Post, Trump’s decision to dismiss his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, was based in part on the latter’s decision to discuss with Netanyahu possible scenarios in which military strikes on Iran might be carried out.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a televised interview last week that Iran was “the only non-[nuclear-]weapon country in the world that’s enriching uranium”, and Tehran should therefore abandon its programme. Trump has since demanded a “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear programme, arguing that Iran has “so much oil” that it does not need nuclear energy.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
It is evident that with the ongoing political chaos in Washington, Trump’s chances of securing a nuclear deal with Iran are diminishing, with all doors to a possible rapprochement at risk of closing.
But he still has a historic opportunity to reach a deal - one that could guarantee Iran never obtains a nuclear bomb, and pave the way for improved relations between Washington and Tehran. Such an outcome would require a realistic understanding of four basic facts.
Enrichment facilities
Firstly, the basis of any nuclear agreement must be grounded in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article IV affirms “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”, and notes that all parties “undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.
Secondly, several non-nuclear-weapons states that are parties to the NPT, including Japan, Brazil and Germany, have enrichment facilities.
This framework would increase the chances of success in diplomacy, and help to prevent the US from being drawn into another devastating war
Thirdly, it was the US that laid the foundations for Iran’s nuclear industry before the 1979 revolution, as the shah envisioned 20 nuclear power plants by 1994. The argument that Iran’s oil reserves negate the need for nuclear energy is thus flawed.
Notably, the UAE - a US ally and major oil producer with a population about one-tenth the size of Iran - operates four nuclear reactors, while Iran operates only one. Moreover, Washington is negotiating with Saudi Arabia on a nuclear enrichment industry, despite the latter being one of the world’s top oil producers.
Finally, with regards to Rubio’s suggestion that Iran could simply import nuclear fuel: I was involved in nuclear talks with European countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During that period, Iran was ready to abandon its large-scale nuclear ambitions, and to refrain from enrichment if the US provided reactor fuel, and European countries honoured their pre-revolution contracts to provide reactors and fuel. But the US rejected the offer, pushing Iran towards self-sufficiency in nuclear fuel.
A realistic nuclear deal
A realistic solution today would involve several components. The main concern regarding Iran’s nuclear programme is its 60-percent enrichment levels, which are approaching weapons-grade. Reducing that level to below five percent would address this concern.
The second key issue involves Iran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Implementing the Additional Protocol, which provides specific tools for verification, would increase the IAEA’s ability to ensure the peaceful use of all nuclear materials in Iran.
The third critical concern is Iran’s stockpile of more than 270 kilogrammes of 60-percent-enriched uranium, enough for about six nuclear bombs. Iran’s agreement to export or convert this stockpile would alleviate fears. Additionally, Iran and the US could agree that Iran retains produced nuclear fuel only for domestic consumption, exporting any surplus.
In their upcoming fourth round of talks, if indeed they happen, the US and Iran could also potentially negotiate an extension to certain restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme - known as the “sunset provisions” - to conclusively address concerns about Iran’s potential access to nuclear weapons, provided the US reciprocates with genuine sanctions relief.
Some of the pressure on Trump is based on the idea that he must make a better deal than former President Barack Obama did. The truth is that by withdrawing from the nuclear deal in 2018, Trump caused billions of dollars in damage to Iran. In a fair new deal, these damages would be compensated - but the US would not likely agree to such provisions.
President Trump is scheduled to make a trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE in mid-May. It has been said that Mohammad bin Salman will invite the leaders of the six GCC member states for a joint meeting with Trump. Bin Salman can invite other regional leaders to discuss the security of this region.
In addition, on the sidelines of this meeting, he could also coordinate a meeting between President Trump and President Pezeshkian so that the principles agreed in three rounds of nuclear talks between Abbas Araghchi and Steve Witkoff can be signed by the two presidents.
The next alternative is for the king of Oman or Emir of Qatar to initiate and coordinate the meeting between the Presidents of Iran and the United States in Muscat or Doha.
Ultimately, Tehran and Washington should agree to negotiate on a comprehensive agenda to lift all US sanctions, with cooperation across several core areas: a formal bilateral nuclear treaty confirming Iran’s status as a non-nuclear-weapons state; broad economic collaboration; US mediation to resolve tensions between Israel and Iran; dialogue to resolve regional conflicts based on mutual recognition of legitimate interests; and a roadmap towards regional deescalation and a rebuilding of diplomatic relations.
This framework would increase the chances of success in diplomacy, and help to prevent the US from being drawn into another devastating war.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
