The second round of talks between the US and Iran in Rome on Saturday could lead to a framework for future negotiations on an agreement to curb Tehran's nuclear programme, analysts told The National.
The talks, which are being mediated by Oman, began last Saturday in Muscat after US President Donald Trump vowed to fully exert his “maximum pressure” policy on Iran. Tehran is seeking relief from economic sanctions that have severely affected its economy.
“Both sides will try to establish what the baseline for the talks are and, hopefully, set up a framework from which they can probably reach an initial deal,” Farzan Sabet, managing researcher at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told The National.
They can then “set out the guidelines for negotiating a longer-term agreement which would, on the one hand, restrict Iran's nuclear programme and, on the other, provide a large measure of sanctions relief”, he said.
Western countries including the US have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, but Tehran has consistently denied the claims, insisting that its programme is for peaceful civilian purposes.
Pessimism from Tehran
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Friday confirmed that he would lead his country's delegation at the talks in Rome, while Mr Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to once again lead the US contingent.
“Although we have serious doubts about the intentions and motivations of the American side, in any case we will participate in tomorrow's negotiations,” Mr Araghchi said at a press conference in Moscow after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
“If there is similar willingness on the other side, and they refrain from making unreasonable and unrealistic demands, I believe reaching an agreement is likely. We are fully prepared to pursue a peaceful resolution for Iran's peaceful nuclear programme,” he said.
Mr Lavrov said Russia was willing to help the two sides to reach a deal.
Mr Araghchi said Iran was receiving “contradictory and inconsistent” messages from Washington.
Mr Witkoff said in a post on X this week that Iran “must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponisation programme”. Only hours before that, he had said a new deal could allow Iran to enrich uranium up to 3.67 per cent – the limit sufficient for civilian use set in the 2015 nuclear deal that expires later this year.
Mr Araghchi responded by saying the “issue of enrichment is non-negotiable”.
Iran began breaching that limit in 2019, a year after Mr Trump, in his first term as president, pulled the US out of the 2015 pact, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which eased sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear activity.
Tehran has now increased its enrichment to 60 per cent, a short technical step from producing weapons-grade uranium, and has stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Its director general, Rafael Grossi, visited Tehran on Wednesday and held talks with Mr Araghchi and Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran.
“We know we don't have much time. So this is why I'm here. This is why I'm in contact with the United States as well,” Mr Grossi told Iranian media.
Joost Hiltermann, programme director for Middle East and North Africa at the Crisis Group, said there was a lack of consensus in Washington about what its approach should be, which could affect the outcome of the talks.
“Their differences are on public display. If that continues during the second round of talks, then the outcome can't be good,” he told The National.
“Iran has indicated what its red lines are. If the US rejects these, then the talks will end without result and the possibility of war will increase dramatically.”
Who has the upper hand?
Speaking at the White House on Friday, Mr Trump reiterated his view that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon”.
If Iran developed a nuclear bomb, “your life will be in great danger”, he told reporters
The US President has taken a carrot and stick approach to dealing with Iran, calling for a diplomatic deal while also voicing plans for a military attack with “bombing the likes of which they have never seen”.
He has said “Iran is going to be in great danger” if the talks are unsuccessful.
“The US has the upper hand for now because of the impact of sanctions and because it can wield the stick of superior military power,” Mr Hiltermann said.
However, “attacking Iran's nuclear programme will not necessarily bring down the Islamic Republic, and may cause only a temporary setback to the nuclear programme and indeed harden the leadership's determination to proceed”, he said.
Seyed Emamian, assistant professor at Tehran Polytechnic University and a founder of the Governance and Policy Think Tank, said that to increase the chances of reaching a deal “both sides should avoid using destructive language and extend the scope of the talks beyond nuclear militarisation”.
“Building upon the scope of the JCPOA experience, Iran seems uninterested in getting lost in the mess of sophisticated US-sanction machinery. Instead, Iran is keen to safeguard a certain level of economic gains out of any likely deal," Mr Emamian said in comments to the Italian Institute for International Political Studies.
Mr Sabet pointed out that Iran was experiencing “a lot of domestic economic issues, some of which are linked to sanctions, some of which are linked to broader issues of governance, mismanagement and corruption”.
“I'm still confident that it's within the power of the two sides to reach an initial deal that would put some restrictions and scale back the current advanced state of the Iranian nuclear programme,” he said.
