US, Iran holds a make-or-break talks: Analysis

The high -level delegation from the United States and Iran met during the weekend in Oman to discuss the Tehran nuclear program quickly, holding what the White House said would be a direct conversation for the first time in seven years.

The meeting came when experts widely agreed that the time of Iranian escape to collect sufficient fisil material to produce nuclear warheads had shrunk only one to two weeks – and that Tehran could produce nuclear weapons that could be delivered in less than a year.

Despite opening the path of communication with Iran, the Trump government played hardball-with the President himself repeatedly clarifying in the past week that Iran’s alternative options to take an agreement under a military attack, set the stage for diplomatic battles at high risk.

Already at a dispute?

Ahead of the scheduled meeting, both parties presented various ideas about how the conversation would occur.

From when President Donald Trump made a surprise announcement that his government would soon be involved with Iran during the Oval office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, he insisted that the two countries would not depend on intermediaries.

“We are holding direct talks with Iran, and they have started. This will happen on Saturday,” Trump said. “We have a very big meeting, and we will see what can happen.”

But officials in Tehran quickly rejected this, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the meeting on April 12 would be “indirect high -level talks.”

“This is the same opportunity as a test,” he wrote in social media posts on X.

“Well, I have spoken with the President and also the national security team who will be involved in this discussion. This will be a direct discussion with Iran,” Press Secretary of the White House Karoline Leavitt pushed back on Friday.

“The main goal is to ensure that Iran will never be able to get nuclear weapons. The President believes in diplomacy, direct talks, speaking directly in the same room to achieve that goal,” he continued.

If the White House’s vision is realized, the conversation will mark the first time that the delegation from Iran and the US has met in person since 2018, when Trump came out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, the comprehensive action plan (JCPOA), which was meditated during the Obama administration.

New approach, looming deadline

When it comes to gain insights about Trump’s administrative strategy, the format of conversation may not be as important as the fact that the discussion is scheduled to occur in the first place.

Doreen Horschig, a colleague with a project about nuclear problems at the Strategic and International Study Center, and Bailey Schiff, Program Coordinator and Research Assistant for this Program, argued the President’s approach to Iran has developed.

“Iran’s strategy Trump’s administration has evolved from the first -term approach that focuses on maximum economic pressure to the second term strategy that combines diplomacy, military threats and sanctions,” they said, adding that the game plan now depends on “diplomatic outreach, military posture and sustainable economic pressure.”

“What is important is that they speak,” Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for the responsible Statecraft, in an OP-ED for Time Magazine.

Parsi also argues that the time is very important for Iran and the US

“Apart from his aggressive conversation and his military attitude, Trump was unable to buy another big war in the Middle East,” he said. “He has long been a candidate who promised to bring US troops home – not involving them in a new war.”

Meanwhile, Parsi noted that Iran opposed the economic view that had the potential to deteriorate.

It has been limited by broad US sanctions, Tehran must also compete with the “Snapback Mechanism” JCPOA – a kind of emergency brake built into an agreement that allows UN sanctions to automatically be forced if Iran violates the agreement provisions.

European countries that are still partying at JCPOA have until October 18 to trigger the Snapback function of the agreement and seem to be increasingly motivated to do it ahead of the deadline.

But considering the Iranian nuclear escape timeline that is tracked quickly, as-and other countries who do not want to see the nuclear capable tearan-also feel the crisis.

Until now, there is no indication that the Iranian regime has given orders to move to the next level when it comes to developing nuclear warheads, but many US officials considered it to be under increased pressure to do it from hardlines because of the perceived threat to Iran’s safety and broader riots through the Middle East.

Carrots and sticks

Apart from the willingness to be involved from the Trump government and economic pressure encourages the Iranian regime, the negotiator may struggle to compile an agreement that can provide incentives to all parties, according to former US ambassadors to Israel Daniel B. Shapiro, a prominent man with the Middle East security initiative.

“If and when the conversation becomes serious, both parties will face a great gap,” said Shapiro, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East and senior advisors for the East Foreign Department Bureau.

Shapiro noted that Trump, like the Biden administration before him, was looking for a stronger agreement than JCPOA.

“The aim is to fully demolish Tehran’s nuclear program,” said Shapiro. “Based on all Iranian behavior in the previous negotiation round, there is no reason to believe that Tehran will approve this requirement.”

Even if Iran recognizes, Shapiro believes that Tehran will possibly expect great sanctions – something that is impossible to be signed by the Congress.

Trump has indicated that if an agreement cannot be achieved, a joint military action with Israel against Iran is the next choice.

“If you need the military, we will have a military,” Trump said on Wednesday. “Israel will obviously be very involved in that. They will be the leader.”

“He and his team would know that in a relatively short time, he tended to face the decision point whether to carry out military attacks or not,” said Shapiro. “Time, needs, and opportunities may never be more interesting.”