The Iran nuclear talks
How should the US focus nuclear negotiations with Iran? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
Quick announcement
Thanks to those who tapped an answer to our 1-question poll last week on the format of the last edition. A significant number of you expressed an interest in the shorter format, so we’ll be incorporating more of those going forward.
If you have another quick moment this week, please answer our 1-question poll at the bottom on the placement of the Snippets section, which we’re testing out at the top. Your feedback is so valuable in helping us improve!
Eric
Snippets
FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee judge on obstruction charges for allegedly assisting an undocumented defendant avoid arrest.
Russia launched its deadliest attack on Ukraine’s capital of Kyiv since July, killing at least 12 and injuring 90. The attack came amid weeks of peace negotiations organized by the US that have not yet driven an agreement.
Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope, died at age 88 after suffering a stroke. The Argentine pontiff was known for his inclusive style – including a more tolerant stance on same-sex marriage – during his 12-year papacy, drawing support from liberal Catholics and criticism from traditionalists.
Three federal judges have ruled against a Department of Education policy that would withhold federal funding to all public schools that engage in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The policy was first laid out in a letter sent to schools in February.
After a deadly militant attack killed 26 tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, India closed its main border crossing with Pakistan, ended visa services for all Pakistani nationals, and suspended its participation in a 6 decade-long water sharing treaty with Islamabad. Pakistan denied involvement and retaliated with a set of similar measures.
What’s happening
The US and Iran continued negotiations today in Oman around potential limits to Iran’s nuclear program. It marked the third round of “indirect talks,” with US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leading their respective delegations. Both sides described the discussions as constructive and signaled readiness to meet again on May 3.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated earlier this week that the US was willing to permit a civilian nuclear power program under a requirement that Iran would import all enriched uranium and not retain any domestic enrichment capacity.
Why now: The talks come as the current Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – is set to expire on Oct 18, which would technically free Iran from many of its current nuclear limits. JCPOA was initially agreed upon in 2015 between Iran and six world powers – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany.
The pact required Iran to limit the volume of enriched uranium and plutonium it produced or held, established a uranium enrichment cap of 3.67% purity (well below the roughly 90% required to build a weapon), put restrictions on the enrichment infrastructure Iran could operate, and required Iran to submit to compliance inspections from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, the US and other signatories agreed to lift certain sanctions, enabling Iran to resume oil exports and unfreezing roughly $100B in frozen assets.
Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal: President Trump withdrew the US from JCPOA in 2018 during his first term – arguing it was too permissive – and initiated tighter economic sanctions on Iran. Since then, while European signatories have attempted to keep core aspects of the deal intact and the Biden administration tried to restore US involvement while loosening some sanctions, the strength of the JCPOA has waned. Iran was assessed to have breached its restrictions in 2019.
If a new deal is not reached, France, the UK, and Germany have indicated they would initiate “snapback sanctions” on Iran that have been paused throughout the deal. Trump also issued a memorandum calling for the reimposition of “maximum pressure sanctions” on Iran shortly after retaking office in February, in part setting the stage for the current negotiations.
Iran’s current capabilities: The JCPOA is a tighter and more specific set of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capacity than the broader Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which Iran has been party to since 1970 and commits it to not possessing a nuclear weapon. While Iran is widely assessed to not have a nuclear bomb, the IAEA has reported that Iran has increased uranium enrichment levels to up to 60% (well above the JCPOA’s 3.67% limit).
Much of the debate around the negotiations focuses on whether the US should push for a more targeted deal similar to the JCPOA or demand a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear capabilities among other potential restrictions such as those against Iran’s possession of ballistic missiles or its continued support for proxy military groups. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
Supportive of pushing for a more targeted deal:
Complete nuclear dismantlement is unrealistic.
Iran is highly unlikely to accept full nuclear dismantlement, which it would view as removing its international legitimacy and a step toward the cautionary tale that is former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi’s agreement to give up nuclear capabilities in 2003. Eight years after Gaddafi did so, his regime was toppled by NATO-supported forces likely emboldened by Gaddafi’s lack of a nuclear deterrent.
Iran is likely willing to take a targeted deal at least as restrictive as the original JCPOA, which would be a win for Trump and help head off Iran’s most serious threats. For instance, downgrading Iran’s uranium enrichment to much lower thresholds (i.e., 3.67%) than its current levels (i.e., up to 60%) could effectively expand its lead time for creating a bomb to roughly a year, which would give the US and allies plenty of time to respond politically, economically, or militarily if Iran were to mobilize toward creating one.
“First, while Trump really wants a deal, most of the decisionmakers in the administration have traditionally been much more hawkish on Iran including Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, Pete Hegseth, and many of the political appointees who work for them. They and Netanyahu may convince Trump to pursue unrealistic terms such as the complete dismantlement of the nuclear program, which could lead to the collapse in negotiations.” (Ilan Goldenberg, Dialogue and Dissonance.)
A hardline stance under the threat of military action would be too risky.
Striking Iran’s military facilities – some of which are located deep underground – may not successfully eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities and risks rallying nationalist opposition to the West among an Iranian population that has actually demonstrated a growing dissatisfaction with the current Iranian regime, giving it an unearned opportunity to strengthen domestic support.
With full dismantlement unlikely to be agreed to by Iran, military intervention by the US as a fail-safe response would be highly risky. It would likely face significant barriers to success, sparking a long protracted battle and disrupting global oil shipments from the Persian Gulf in a way that could have global economic implications. The US has been bombing Houthis in Yemen for a decade with mixed results, for instance, and an operation in Iran would be much more complicated.
Supportive of pushing for complete dismantlement:
Complete nuclear dismantlement is the only way to limit the Iran threat.
A deal that permits any level of nuclear fuel enrichment or the continued stockpiling of ballistic missiles would be a win for Iran, awarding it an undue level of acceptance on the world stage and emboldening the regime to continue developing nuclear weapon capabilities.
Negotiating anything less than complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and infrastructure, destruction of its weaponization facilities, and acceptance of intrusive inspections by IAEA to ensure compliance will play into Tehran’s hand and threaten both stability in the Middle East and US national security. Since Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei will almost assuredly not agree to such restrictions, military intervention to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the most viable path forward.
“American isolationists on the right, and their allies in Obama-aligned think tanks in Washington, suggest there are only two options – ‘war or a [targeted] deal.’ This weakens our position and wanders blindly into the false dichotomy the Iranians want us to believe. …It is a false choice propagated by those who would prefer to coddle the regime in Tehran and cut a deal that will ensure that Iran obtains a full-on nuclear weapons program over time. Ironically, this outcome makes war more, not less, likely.” (Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, The Free Press.)
Iran is vulnerable enough to deal with decisively.
The Khamenei-led Iranian regime is at its weakest point in years – driven in part by the decimation of its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah by Israel since the Oct 7 attacks – making this an optimal time to eliminate Iran’s nuclear and other destabilizing capabilities. Under the threat of a military strike for noncompliance, the US should demand complete dismantlement of all uranium enrichment sites and related infrastructure, that Iran cease its funding of proxy forces, and that Iran stop threatening Israel and Arab neighbors.
With the combination of a struggling economy – Iran’s rial is at an all-time low relative to the US dollar – and its significantly weakened proxy network, Iran is more isolated and vulnerable than at any point in recent history, making this the ideal time to approach it decisively and put an end to its nuclear program.
Other viewpoints:
With or without economic sanctions, Iran would likely still be able to fund its proxy network if it wants to. For instance, Iran spent an estimated $25B on its military over the past year but provides Hezbollah an estimated $700M and Palestinian groups including Hamas $100M annually, small fractions of its budget.
The West would be better off neither engaging in direct negotiations nor militarily, but rather continuing what it’s doing – prolonging some sanctions, combatting proxy forces in the Middle East, and demonstrating support for internal opposition to the regime, a combination that will likely precipitate the regime’s internal collapse. Negotiations would give the Iranian regime economic relief and greater legitimacy on the world stage while military strikes could rally support domestically and drive Iran to accelerate nuclear weaponization.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on the Iran nuclear talks and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Below are topic ideas to consider.
Do you support pushing for a more targeted nuclear deal with Iran or for complete dismantlement under the threat of military intervention?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
1-question poll!
Music on the bottom
Check out this upbeat track, “Bluephoria,” by new-age southern rock band, Larkin Poe. They’re a sister-sister duo with a heck of a backing band.
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.