Washington D.C. – Reports that the U.S. and Iran will reconvene in Oman for a fourth round of nuclear negotiations is very welcome news. Recent comments in the press had fueled speculation that the postponement of talks last week was not due to logistical hurdles, but rather a divide on the framework of the negotiations. Another round of negotiations will present the parties with an opportunity to clarify goals, ensure realistic expectations and make progress that is urgently needed to ensure Iran does not weaponize its nuclear program and that the U.S. and Iran do not become ensnared in a bloody and disastrous war.
In particular, recent American calls for the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program have raised questions about whether the U.S. is serious about reaching an achievable deal. The success or failure of these talks revolves on one question – will the U.S. accept an Iranian nuclear enrichment program limited to peaceful purposes? For years after Iran’s enrichment program at Natanz was revealed in 2002, the Bush-Cheney Administration insisted on “zero enrichment” and “dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program as a precondition for negotiations to resolve the issue – a poison pill that prevented talks and ensured the rapid expansion of Iran’s nuclear program.
Contradictory signals from the United States – reflected by President Trump in his most recent interview – do not move the United States closer to a peaceful resolution. If maximalist demands like total dismantlement remain the U.S. baseline, the window to strike a deal will close and the risks of war will greatly increase. No sovereign state will enter negotiations only to capitulate to such terms, especially when the alternative appears to be coercion rather than compromise.
Even under Obama, diplomatic efforts faltered until the U.S. signaled its recognition of Iran’s right to a civilian enrichment program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If President Trump says he wants a deal but insists on “the Libya model” and “zero-enrichment”, he will follow in the footsteps of Bush and Cheney and the U.S. will likely go to war with Iran. The President has repeatedly stated he wants a deal, not a war, with Iran but is surrounded by many advisors with contrary preferences. Even with neocons like Michael Waltz leaving Trump’s inner circle, there are plenty of others who remain adherents to the Bush-Cheney worldview. For them, diplomacy may be less a genuine effort to resolve conflict and more an obstacle to overcome, or a formality to get past on the way to war.
Both U.S. and Iranian officials must exercise discipline and avoid the trap of negotiations being driven by public soundbites for domestic audiences. Successful negotiations require discretion, pragmatism, and a clear path to de-escalation – not performative posturing for political gain.
The American people deserve a foreign policy that prioritizes peace and avoids unnecessary military conflict. We urge the Trump administration to enter the next round of negotiations with seriousness, setting aside maximalist demands in favor of a strong agreement that achieves the bottom lines of preventing proliferation and war.