The clock signs Iran through the two-month timeline of President Trump’s two-month timeline over the nuclear program, signaling optimism ahead of third round talks later this week.
However, it remains to be seen whether Trump and Iranian leaders will be able to find a common foundation between eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and eliminating the US’s biggest demands and returning to something like an Obama-era nuclear deal that limits Tehran’s ability to create weapons.
Trump has long abandoned Obama’s deal as weak, and both Hawkish Republicans and Israel are likely to oppose the deal on similar terms. However, Iran is certainly denied a deal that completely eliminates its nuclear program.
The stakes are high. Trump suggests that if talks fail, Israeli forces’ attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be lit up in green.
US and Iranian technical experts are expected to meet in Oman on Saturday.
Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Bureau, told reporters Wednesday that both Iran and the Trump administration are committed to reaching deals.
“I think these are very serious negotiations. They are very serious,” he said during a visit to Washington following a meeting in Tehran last week. “There are no improvisations here.
Both sides have incentives to reach an agreement, but at least avoiding fatal and destructive conflicts. Iran’s economy is suffocated under sanctions, and Trump is focusing on expanding favorable business opportunities and wants to avoid escalating military action in the Middle East.
“I’m not talking for President Trump, but I think his position is that he wants to run out all of his options first before he considers all sorts of military actions in Iran or perhaps naval blockades,” said Fred Freitz, vice-chairman of the America First Policy Institute and Chief of Staff on Trump’s First National Security Council.
“He always took an approach to national security to keep our nation away from new and unnecessary wars whenever possible.”
Trump reportedly sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei in March, setting a two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear deal. If the deal was not reached, he provided an ambiguous threat.
“Something will happen soon. I would like to have a peace agreement more than the other options, but the other options will solve the problem,” he said last month.
According to experts, given the short frame, a narrow framework is more achievable than a full-scale transaction aimed at being more robust than a JCPOA. However, there are still challenges.
“The fish closest to the boat is clearly a nuclear piece, but I don’t know how it will reach it in 60 days,” said Christopher Ford, who served as Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation in Trump’s first term.
Speaking on a panel hosted by Carnegie’s Carnegie Fund for International Peace on Monday, Iran may be willing to ship its stockpile of rich uranium, the fuel it needs for nuclear weapons, but it is unlikely to give up its ability to fully enrich its ability.
Ali Vez, Iran’s project director for International Crisis Group, said Iran could be open to compromise on issues beyond nuclear files for terrestrial realities. Israel significantly weakened proxies in Hezbollah, Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and destroyed air defense systems during the October strike.
“They don’t ask for a complete dismantling. They will likely take restrictions and trust-building measures,” Vaez said on the CEIP panel.
Iran also faces an October deadline for even more severe international sanctions if it fails to reach an agreement.
Under the terms of the Obama-era Trade, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), European signatories can petition the UN Security Council to snap back sanctions against Iran. The only way to prevent the re-enforcement of sanctions is a move that the US, France and the UK can call through the passage of a Security Council resolution.
“My impression from speaking informally with European interlocutors is that it is possible that Europeans actually want to call out snapbacks, but perhaps only if they feel that the US is approaching this with a serious negotiation strategy,” Ford said.
“They don’t think they are too eager to have their relationship with Iran by making snapbacks unless they contribute usefully to the answers to the negotiations.”
However, Iran still retains leverage within the scope of its nuclear program, with Tehran being rated as being able to earn enough fuel for one bomb within a week. Experts say that its nuclear infrastructure is more sophisticated and vast than in 2018 when Trump pulled the US out of Obama-era deals, and has speeded up since Trump was re-elected last year.
“They are [Iran] “As no action was taken to reduce concentrated production, enriched production has increased seven times since November 2024,” Director Grossi said.
The IAEA chief said Iran has now moved to 40 kilograms per month since it produced 60% of uranium enriched uranium at a rate of about 6-7 kilograms per month. Grossi also pointed to an official Iranian statement that it would add a new cascade of centrifuges, increasing its ability to enrich uranium.
Nuclear inspectors are also scattered from accessing the site under construction near the nuclear facility in Natantz, where more sophisticated centrifuges are expected to be deployed.
“It’s obvious, so we’re in a place where there are a lot of important activities related to the program, so we’re asking them, ‘What is this for?’ And they tell us, ‘That’s not your business,'” Grossi said.
“It’s a bit of a ping pong, but the deal continues, the building continues, we’re looking at this and we’re going to continue to look at it.”
Grossi said the IAEA is facing off to verify any possible transactions between Washington and Tehran.
Trump and his best negotiator, Steve Witkov, say they want to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and weaponize its nuclear material. However, these statements came after Witkov suggested that Iran could maintain enrichment at 3.67%.
“For us in Israel… our red line was always developing the ability to hurry and hurry to bomb, not actually rush to bombs. That’s why Israel is worried about maintaining the former ambassador of Iran,” the former Israeli ambassador said in a discussion with the Jewish Institute for National Security in America (Jinshinsa).
“We don’t know exactly where the US administration is heading in this respect. The fact that we’ve heard various statements could indicate that there is still internal debate within the administration.”
