Washington, D.C. — Despite ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran, former negotiators from both nations contend that a new agreement is possible, provided Iran commits to concrete guarantees to halt its nuclear program. They emphasize that diplomatic avenues remain open, even in a landscape fraught with uncertainty.
Rob Malley, who played a key role in the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, noted that a “fragile, short-term arrangement” could be on the table, potentially allowing both sides to claim a diplomatic win. Under the prior deal with the Obama administration, Iran capped its uranium enrichment and reduced the number of centrifuges, although its nuclear program was not completely dismantled.
Recent events have shifted the balance significantly. Following military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year and the imposition of stringent economic sanctions, Tehran finds itself under increased pressure. This situation could provide the U.S. with leverage to demand that Iran suspend its enrichment indefinitely, lest it face further military repercussions.
Malley suggests that Iran could argue its cessation of enrichment would be a necessary concession stemming from its weakened state following the June 2025 military actions. In this scenario, Iran might contend that it requires time to stabilize its nuclear ambitions before considering a return to enrichment activities.
For the U.S., any agreement would hinge on maintaining the stance that Iran should not possess enrichment capabilities. Both sides could frame such a deal as a success: Iran would highlight that it hasn’t renounced its enrichment rights, while the U.S. could take pride in achieving what previous administrations struggled to secure—a halt to Iran’s nuclear advancements.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who previously served as Iran’s spokesman during negotiations with the European Union, indicated that the current environment presents a different set of opportunities for diplomacy. He stressed that any deal would need to encompass firm guarantees from Iran regarding its commitment to remain a non-nuclear weapon state.
“The focus of Iran’s negotiations revolves around its survival, as well as the protection of its national identity and territorial integrity,” Mousavian said. He stressed that Iran is unwilling to compromise on its defense capabilities in these discussions.
Malley also highlighted another layer of complexity: whether future talks under a new administration would prioritize a nuclear-only agreement or whether they would expand to include Iran’s ballistic missile program, regional alliances, and internal governance issues.
The possibility of resuming talks is influenced by various factors, including shifts in political leadership and prevailing security concerns in the Middle East. With each nation taking a cautious approach, the path toward diplomatic resolution remains intricate but plausible.