The US and Iran are moving towards in-depth technical discussions over Tehran’s nuclear programme, with details of a potential agreement beginning to emerge in what could become a new deal.
Both sides have outlined their positions, but they remain far apart. What Iran appears willing to offer falls short of what Washington is demanding in exchange for sanctions relief and the avoidance of war.
As diplomacy over what US President Donald Trump once described as an “obliterated nuclear programme” unfolds alongside threats of military action, hopes are growing that an agreement can be reached before tension escalates.
Here are the key elements announced so far of what could become a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord.
What Iran is offering
Iran has signalled willingness to accept limits on its nuclear activities, but not to dismantle its programme entirely.
Officials have indicated Tehran could suspend high-level uranium enrichment and dilute its existing stockpile of 60 per cent enriched uranium, reducing its proliferation risk.
“Dilution is on the table,” said head of Information Council Elias Hazrati after the conclusion of the Geneva talks on Thursday evening. “Iran wants the sanctions to be lifted.”
Tehran may also agree to cap enrichment at lower levels suitable for civilian use, allow expanded inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and limit the size of its enriched uranium stockpile.
Such steps would increase the time Iran would need to produce weapons-grade material, addressing one of Washington’s primary concerns.
What Iran does not want to do
Despite signalling openness to limits on its nuclear activities, Iran has drawn clear red lines that it is unlikely to cross in any new agreement.
Foremost, Tehran has ruled out dismantling its uranium enrichment programme entirely. It won't agree to permanent zero enrichment or the full shutdown of its nuclear infrastructure. Iranian officials insist enrichment is a sovereign right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a core element of national scientific and strategic capability.
Iran also does not want to irreversibly dismantle its centrifuges or eliminate its technical capacity. The knowledge and industrial base built over decades are viewed as strategic assets, and preserving them ensures Iran retains leverage and the ability to resume activities if a future agreement collapses.
Another key concern is the fate of its enriched uranium stockpile. Tehran may accept dilution or monitored storage, but it is reluctant to permanently surrender its material without firm guarantees of sanctions relief, particularly after the US withdrawal from the 2015 deal.
Verification is another sensitive issue. Iran has historically allowed international inspections but remains opposed to unrestricted access to military sites or inspection regimes it considers intrusive or beyond standard international obligations.
Beyond the nuclear file, Iran has rejected linking any agreement to its ballistic missile programme or regional proxies and allies, arguing that those fall outside the scope of nuclear negotiations.
What Trump wants
The Trump administration is pushing for deeper and more permanent restrictions. Washington’s priority is to ensure Iran cannot quickly produce nuclear weapons, even if it chooses to do so.
US officials want not only strict limits on enrichment levels but also significant reductions in Iran’s uranium stockpile. They are pushing for zero enrichment inside Iran and the movement of the stockpile outside Iran. They are also seeking tight controls on advanced centrifuges, which can enrich uranium faster.
Verification is also central. The US is seeking intrusive inspections to ensure Iran cannot secretly rebuild parts of its programme or hide nuclear material.
Beyond the nuclear file, Washington has also linked sanctions relief to broader concerns, including Iran’s missile programme and regional activities, though it remains unclear whether those issues will be included in the current negotiations.
Whatever the Iranian offer may be, it is hard to see it satisfying the Americans. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US had brought “tough demands” to the talks, including dismantling Iran's enrichment sites and handing over enriched uranium to the US under a deal that would “last forever”.
What makes this different from 2015
Unlike the 2015 agreement, which was reached after years of gradual escalation, the current negotiations follow direct military confrontation.
Both sides are negotiating from positions shaped by military confrontation, damaged nuclear facilities and deep mistrust, making any potential deal narrower, more fragile and harder to reach.
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been severely damaged, but not eliminated, and its technical knowledge cannot be reversed. At the same time, Washington has demonstrated a willingness to use military force, fundamentally changing the balance of pressure.
Mr Trump has also made clear he wants stronger terms than the previous deal, which he withdrew from during his first term, calling it insufficient.
Ultimately, both sides are pursuing different objectives. Iran wants sanctions relief, security guarantees and recognition of its right to maintain a civilian nuclear programme. The US wants to ensure Iran remains far from being able to build a nuclear weapon, extending its breakout time from weeks to at least a year.
