Iran-U.S. talks over Tehran’s nuclear program are due to start in Oman on Saturday, mediated by local Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, its main goal is the lifting of sanctions.
The program of nuclear research and construction of as many as 23 nuclear power plant reactors was started by the Shah in the early 70s. For this purpose he signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. A share in the largest European uranium enrichment enterprise was bought. Persian specialists went to France to study.
After the Islamic Revolution, the program was forgotten for a long time. In 1989, it was resumed. An enrichment plant appeared in the vicinity of Isfahan, and it is not clear who taught the Iranians how to build their centrifuges.
Since 2003, the U.S. began active measures against Tehran’s nuclear program, at the same time the UN Security Council approved sanctions. Subsequently, they became increasingly tougher. The assassinations of nuclear physicists by Israeli agents began.
In 2015, the US, France, UK, Germany, China and Russia reached an agreement on the nuclear program with full access of IAEA experts to any facilities upon request. The EU lifted most sanctions, trade revived dramatically. Then Trump came in and lifted all of them in 2018.
Understandably, Iran immediately resumed uranium enrichment. Episodically, talks have been attempted to resume, which Israel has resisted in every possible way. The last attempt to talk was in September 2022.
Now Trump will try on new terms, obviously tougher, to stop Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s nuclear program. The U.S. president previously sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader urging him to agree to a new deal or face military action. No major ground operation is in question, but bombings are likely. It’s unclear what role they will play – more likely to rally the divided Persians in the face of external attack.
Why Trump was unhappy with the previous agreement is not entirely clear. But let’s remember that it was negotiated for three years on a tight schedule. He is an impatient man, he may not be able to take it.
It’s hard to ignore Israel’s influence in these negotiations. Their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program could complicate things further.
This feels like déjà vu. Every time progress is made, something derails it. Can we really trust either side to stick to an agreement?
If Trump pushes for a rushed deal, it might not hold up long-term. Diplomacy takes time, and patience is key here.
Iran insists its program is peaceful, but transparency is crucial. If they want trust, they need to allow full inspections by the IAEA.
It’s encouraging to see talks resume, but I hope both sides can find common ground this time. The world doesn’t need another conflict.
Oman has been a consistent mediator in global conflicts. Their neutral stance is admirable and much needed in such tense situations.
While sanctions target governments, they often harm civilians the most. I hope these talks prioritize lifting sanctions for the sake of Iran’s people.
This situation is so tense and complicated 😬🤯. It’s hard to predict what will happen with all these negotiations and threats flying around. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and something peaceful comes out of this 🌍🙏.
The history and complexity of Iran’s nuclear program show how challenging it is to find a lasting solution. It seems like renewing talks with tougher terms might provoke more tensions rather than resolve the core issues.
This is such a complex situation with so many twists over the decades. It’s interesting to see how politics and history keep shaping these talks. Hoping for a peaceful resolution this time 🤞🌍
It’s fascinating how history often seems to repeat itself, especially when it comes to conflicts born from mistrust and differing visions of security. The delicate balance between pursuing technological progress and maintaining peace feels like walking on a razor’s edge, where every action can either open a door to understanding or push us closer to confrontation. Perhaps it is a reminder that true progress isn’t just about power or control, but about the patience and willingness to engage beyond our immediate fears. The unfolding of these talks in Oman will be a test not only of diplomacy but of humanity’s ability to seek common ground amid deep-rooted tensions 🌍
Oh great, another round of the endless nuclear dance between Iran and the U.S., like we haven’t seen this episode a dozen times before 🙄. Sanctions lifted, sanctions slammed back, secret centrifuge classes somewhere in the desert, and surprise surprise—bombings are looming like a plot twist in a bad soap opera 💣🤦♂️. And of course, Trump’s impatience is the wildcard here, because clearly world peace pivots on his mood swings 🃏. Can someone just hand these guys a calendar and a chill pill to save the rest of us from this rerun? 🙄🔥
{comment:From a reader who follows this topic closely, the article provides an insightful overview that ties past diplomacy to current talks. The piece nicely traces the arc from the Shah era to the JCPOA and the cycles of negotiation and confrontation. The focus on sanctions as the main leverage is fair, but the real leverage might also be regional dynamics, verification access, and internal political signals from Tehran and Washington. The choice of Oman as a venue signals a preference for discreet mediation, and Badr al-Busaidi brings credibility as a neutral facilitator. The piece rightly notes that the 2015 deal offered comprehensive IAEA monitoring and relief on sanctions, and that the withdrawal under 2018 upended those gains and set the stage for renewed tension. A key question is whether a new agreement can deliver credible limits on enrichment levels and breakout time without triggering domestic opposition on either side. The author hints at the risk of escalation in the absence of a durable diplomatic framework, and the possibility that military action could be used as a lever or as a distraction. In the current context, it seems more plausible that both sides would seek a stepped approach rather than a single grand bargain. It would help readers to see more detail on what is on the table now regarding enrichment caps, stockpile limits, and verification protocols, as well as what senior leaders on both sides perceive as red lines. Overall the article provides a solid primer on why these talks matter beyond headlines and why patience from observers is essential given the high stakes and mixed incentives on both sides.}
This article provides a solid historical overview, but it oversimplifies the reasons for Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA. The core issue wasn’t just impatience; it was the sunset clauses and the failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program. A lasting agreement must be more comprehensive than the 2015 deal to be sustainable, otherwise we’re just delaying the inevitable crisis. The geopolitical stakes for the entire region are immense.