As of this year,  U.S.-Iran relations remain tense yet diplomatic, centered on efforts to revive nuclear talks under the mediation of Oman. The next round of negotiations is set for May 11, with the U.S. pushing for the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, Iran is seeking relief from international sanctions in exchange for agreeing to limit its nuclear program and allow inspections by organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is the core of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal. In essence, Iran agrees to restrain its nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that restrict its economic activity. Iran’s proposal for an interim nuclear deal with the U.S. reflects a tactical move to ease immediate tensions. Still, without a long-term agreement, it risks serving only as a temporary fix amid deep mistrust and regional challenges.

The JCPOA was a landmark accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, back in 2015. It consisted of Iran’s agreement to disengage most of its nuclear program and open its facilities to a more aggressive international inspection in exchange for billions of dollars worth of sanctions relief. The idea behind it was that it would help prevent a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, thereby reducing the prospects for conflict between Iran and its regional rivals, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the deal has been jeopardized due to President Trump’s withdrawal from it in 2018. As a retaliation for the U.S.’s departure and for the deadly attacks on Iranians in 2020, Iran has resumed its nuclear activities. Resultantly, President Biden expressed the United States’ willingness to return to the JCPOA as long as Iran came back into compliance. However, after over two years, the countries are far from a longstanding compromise. “Under the terms of the deal, Iran would no longer enrich uranium to 60% or higher levels and would continue cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency for monitoring and verification of its nuclear program. The United States would authorize Iran to export up to one million barrels per day of oil and access some frozen funds abroad,” says U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff. Iran has been hesitant, likely because it’s seeking more concessions for agreeing to a deal, and the terms might not fully address its concerns about the status of its nuclear program and the implications of a nuclear deal. This ultimately highlights the type of touch-and-go relationship between the two countries, which serves to prove how difficult it is to find a long-lasting compromise to these concerns.

Unsure if and when the clock has started ticking, Trump has recently enforced a two-month deadline for negotiations with Iran regarding a new nuclear deal. If a proper deal isn’t reached, Trump could order a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities or support an Israeli strike. By means of the United States’ stance, Trump is presently very adamant that Iran never gets access to a single nuclear weapon. “Total dismantlement. Yes, that is all I would accept,” Trump told NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press.” He furthered it by saying he wants Iran to be “really successful, really great, really fantastic.” However, he doesn’t want them to have access to such weapons because the “world would be destroyed.” He has noted that an interim agreement might also include a demand from Iran that Trump suspend his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran’s economy. One might assume his unwillingness to do this, considering his recent imposition of two rounds of new sanctions against Iranian companies. 

Meanwhile, there’s the stance of the Iranians. The former head of Iran’s national security council, Ali Shamkhani, who is now a foreign policy adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said the continued military threats against Iran “may lead to deterrent measures.” He then suggested that Iran could possibly expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and cease to cooperate with the nuclear watchdog. This means potentially transferring enriched materials to “secure locations” that are not monitored by the UN. Because of this, people are beginning to question what the intentions of Iran are in forming this deal. Western countries say Iran’s nuclear program is geared towards producing weapons, whereas Iran insists it is purely for civilian purposes. They have mentioned several times that their primary focus is to ease economic pressure and sanctions from Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which was devised solely to persuade them into making a better deal. Both Biden and Trump have failed to do so since 2018. 

In analyzing the circumstances, it is unlikely that a nuclear deal being made between the United States and Iran that accommodates both perspectives will be made within the timeframe Trump has set. They are burdened with a past in the situation that may disable them from a comprehensive agreement, and it could possibly lead to further complications. Its success depends wholly on cautious diplomacy and a genuine commitment to long-term solutions.