The United States and Iran described the first three rounds of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program as constructive, but comments from Washington and Tehran suggest that key differences remain ahead of the fourth round of talks.
Since President Donald Trump announced on April 7 that the United States and Iran agreed to begin talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff met three times. The third round of negotiations in Oman on April 26 included technical-level talks between the two sides.
Araghchi described the third meeting as “much more serious.” He said the two sides moved into “more detailed discussions” about a nuclear agreement, but that disagreements remain. A senior U.S. official said the talks were “positive and productive,” and Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who facilitated the negotiations, said the sides addressed “core principles, objectives, and technical concerns.”
Al-Busaidi said talks were scheduled to resume on May 3, but that meeting was postponed. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that the delay was due to logistics, not policy differences. Trump’s decision to remove Michael Waltz as National Security Advisor may have contributed to the decision to postpone. Witkoff said on May 5 that the United States and Iran were looking to schedule the fourth round of talks for the upcoming weekend, but Trump’s trip to the Middle East could result in further postponement. Trump is set to visit Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar during the trip, which begins on May 13.
When asked about the talks on April 25, Trump said they were going well and expressed his willingness to meet with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as part of the negotiating process.
U.S. and Iranian officials have suggested that the deal will trade nuclear limits for sanctions relief but the U.S. objectives on the nuclear side remain unclear. The scope of Iran’s civil nuclear program will likely be a key issue in negotiations.
Trump told NBC on May 4 that “complete dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program is all he will accept for a deal, an objective that Iran has repeatedly rejected. Other senior Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Witkoff, have suggested Iran can retain some of its civil nuclear program in a deal (see below for details). Despite the mixed messages, Iran says it remains committed to talks.
Following Trump’s call for complete dismantlement, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on May 5 that the contradictory messages from U.S. officials are “unhelpful,” but that what matters to Iran is the “stances of the U.S. negotiating team.” Iran will defend its right to a peaceful nuclear program, including uranium enrichment, he said.—KELSEY DAVENPORT, director for nonproliferation policy
U.S. Sends Mixed Messages on Enrichment
After three rounds of negotiations between the United States and Iran, the Trump administration is sending mixed messages about whether Iran will be able to retain uranium enrichment in a nuclear agreement.
In a May 4 interview with NBC, President Donald Trump said “total dismantlement” of the nuclear program is “all I’d accept” in a deal. Trump said that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has so much oil.
Iran currently has one operational nuclear power plant at Bushehr with several additional units under construction at that site, and it produces medical isotopes at the Tehran Research Reactor. Another reactor for isotope production is under construction.
Despite Trump’s comments about dismantlement, his administration is likely showing more flexibility in negotiations. Iranian officials have consistently stated that dismantlement is a non-starter, and it is unlikely the Pezeshkian administration would continue talks if the United States were pressing for complete dismantlement. Iranian officials have emphasized the country's right to a peaceful nuclear program and said specifically that Iran will not give up the enrichment program in a deal.
Senior Trump administration officials have also suggested that Iran could retain limited uranium enrichment.
Vice President JD Vance said on May 7 that Iran cannot have "the kind of enrichment program that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon," which could suggest that limited enrichment is feasible in an agreement.
Following the first round of talks, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, told Fox News in an April 14 interview that Iran would need to reduce its uranium enrichment level to 3.67 percent. Iran was limited to 3.67 percent enrichment, a level suitable for power reactors, under the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Since Iran began violating the JCPOA’s limits in response to the US withdrawal from the accord, it has increased enrichment levels to 60 percent, a level near weapons-grade. Witkoff also said a deal would need to include intrusive monitoring mechanisms and prohibitions on certain weaponization-related activities.
The following day, however, Witkoff backpedaled and said Iran would need to completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program. Other senior Trump administration officials made similar comments, including Secretary of State and current National Security Advisor Marco Rubio.
In a May 2 interview, Rubio said Iran needs to “walk away” from uranium enrichment. Previously, he said that the United States is willing to negotiate a deal that allows Iran to retain a civil nuclear program, but it must rely exclusively on imported fuel. He said (incorrectly) that the “only countries in the world that enrich uranium are the ones that have nuclear weapons.”
Araghchi responded to Rubio’s comment by emphasizing that dismantling uranium enrichment is a non-starter for Iran and pointing out that other that several other states that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) enrich uranium while “wholly rejecting nuclear weapons.” Brazil and Japan, for example have uranium enrichment programs but do not possess nuclear weapons, and the Netherlands and Germany both house enrichment facilities that are part of the URENCO consortium.
Araghchi also said that “maximalist positioning and incendiary rhetoric achieve nothing except eroding the chances of success.” He previously said that the mixed messages the United States is sending on enrichment are “not helpful.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is pressuring the Trump administration to push for zero enrichment. He went a step further in characterizing what is necessary for an agreement in an April 8 video message, where he said that Iran’s nuclear program must be completely dismantled under U.S. supervision. He later reiterated in an April 27 speech that a “real deal” is one that “removes Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
Araghchi accused Netanyahu of “dictating” what the Trump administration “can and cannot do” with diplomacy. He also said Netanyahu is trying to drag the United States “into another disaster in our region,” referring to Israel's threats to strike Iran's nuclear program.
U.S. Increases Sanctions Pressure
The Trump administration continues to ratchet up pressure on Iran while talks are ongoing. In a May 1 post on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that all purchases of oil and petrochemical products from Iran “must stop, NOW.” Any entity that continues to purchase oil will “not be allowed to do business” with the United States, he said.
Prior to Trump’s post, the United States imposed sanctions on five companies based in China and several individuals based in Iran. The U.S. Treasury Department said the individuals and entities were part of a network that was procuring materials for Iran’s ballistic missile program, including propellants.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Iran’s “aggressive development of missiles and other weapons capabilities imperils the safety of the United States and our partners” and “destabilizes the Middle East.” The United States will “take all available measures to deprive Iran” from accessing the materials it needs to advance missile development, he said.
France reiterated its willingness to restore sanctions on Iran if there is no deal or the agreement does not address European security concerns. Jean-Noel Barrot, French minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, said on April 28 that France “will not hesitate for a second” to restore UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted by the 2015 nuclear deal if “European security interests are not guaranteed.” Under a veto-proof snapback mechanism included in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, any party to the deal can reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.
Reimposition of sanctions would “close Iranian access to European technologies, investments, and markets,” he said. Barrot said Iran must “take the necessary decisions” to avoid that outcome.
Iran had proposed meeting with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in Rome on May 2, before meeting with U.S. negotiators for a fourth round of talks, but that meeting was postponed.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi emphasized the importance of talks and the short timeframe for reaching a deal during an April 15-16 visit to Tehran.
Grossi said negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are at a “very crucial” stage and that “all of the elements” must be in place to get an agreement. Following his trip to Tehran, Grossi said he was in touch with the U.S. negotiating team to see how the IAEA “can be a bridge between Iran and the U.S. and help achieve a positive outcome.” IAEA verification will be necessary to make an agreement valid, he said.
In addition to the role that the IAEA would likely play in verifying any nuclear agreement negotiated by the United States and Iran, the agency is pursuing answers from Iran regarding a years-old investigation into undeclared Iranian nuclear activities and materials. The agency’s Board of Governors censured Iran several times for failing to cooperate with IAEA inquiries. During the March board meeting, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States said the board must be prepared to find Iran in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations if Tehran does not cooperate with the IAEA.
Following Grossi’s visit, a team from the IAEA traveled to Iran for talks. Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the agency team was there to hold “technical talks” and that the discussions would include safeguards issues.
Per a request from the board in 2024, Grossi is expected to issue a more comprehensive report on Iran’s safeguards issue ahead of the June Board of Governors meeting.
Trump Rejects Netanyahu’s Military Plans
Israel was planning to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in May, but President Donald Trump reportedly said the United States would not support a military strike.
The New York Times reported on April 16 that Israel’s plans for an attack would have required U.S. assistance, but Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington opposed military strikes. Trump discussed the issue with Netanyahu during an April 7 meeting, when he announced that the United States would begin negotiations with Iran.
According to the April 16 reporting, Israel was aiming to set Iran’s nuclear program back a year and readied several different plans to achieve that objective.
Iranian officials have said that attacks on nuclear facilities could prompt Tehran to rethink its position on nuclear weapons.
Like his predecessors, Trump has threatened to use military force against Iran to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons if diplomacy does not work. Trump told TIME on April 25 that he will be “leading the pack” to strike Iran if there is no deal.
In Case You Missed It…
- Robert J. Goldston, A new Iran nuclear deal — without sunset, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 2.
- Kelsey Davenport, Creating the Conditions For A Nuclear Deal with Iran, Just Security, May 1.
- Ellie Geranmayeh, Here’s How an Iran Deal Could Work, The American Conservative, April 29.
- Jamie Kwong, Bargaining Short of the Bomb: A Strategy for Preventing Iranian NPT Withdrawal, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 9.