Trump Confronts Major Hurdles in Pursuit of Enhanced Iran Nuclear Agreement
As talks between Iran and the United States potentially reconvene in Islamabad, Donald Trump faces significant political and diplomatic challenges. The US president must demonstrate that any new deal he secures is more favourable than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by Barack Obama, from which Trump withdrew in 2018. Additionally, he needs to prove it surpasses the terms offered in Geneva in February, prior to the outbreak of conflict.
Failure to achieve these objectives would mean Trump has inflicted substantial damage on the global economy, despite less costly alternatives being available. He must also show that Iran has not gained permanent control over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. These benchmarks will guide his negotiating team's anxious oversight.
Comparing Deals: JCPOA Versus Potential Islamabad Agreement
Direct comparisons between the 159-page JCPOA and any forthcoming Islamabad deal are complex, given the evolution of Iran's nuclear programme since 2015. Issues like Iran's ballistic missile programme and management of the Strait of Hormuz now hold greater prominence. However, a key advantage of any new deal is the absence of sunset clauses, addressing one of Trump's major criticisms of the Obama-era agreement. Instead, it will feature specific datelines for triggered events, aiming for a permanent framework.
Key Sticking Points in Negotiations
Uranium Enrichment: A primary issue is Iran's domestic enrichment of uranium. In Geneva talks on 26 February, the US demanded a 10-year suspension, while Iran suggested a maximum of three years. Recently, the US raised this to 20 years in Islamabad, with Trump advocating for a permanent ban. In contrast, the 2015 deal allowed enrichment at 3.67% purity for 15 years, without explicitly granting Iran the right to enrich as a principle.
Stockpile of Highly Enriched Uranium: The JCPOA limited Iran's stockpile to 300kg of uranium enriched to 3.65%. Currently, Iran holds 440.9kg enriched to 60%, which can be quickly upgraded to weapons-grade levels. In Geneva, Iran offered to downblend this stockpile to 3.67%, an irreversible process. The US, however, insists on removing the entire stockpile from Iran under its supervision, though the rationale for preferring this over IAEA-supervised downblending remains unclear.
Sanctions Relief: The 2015 deal involved releasing approximately $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets and lifting oil trade restrictions, while maintaining sanctions related to terrorism, human rights, and missiles. In Geneva, over 80% of sanctions were set to be lifted, excluding human rights-related ones. Trump faces political pressure to restrict how Iran spends sanctions relief, whereas Iran demands permanent, non-reversible relief, highlighting a trust deficit.
Non-Nuclear Issues: Trump has criticised the JCPOA for isolating Iran's nuclear programme from broader behaviour, such as support for proxy forces and ballistic missiles. The future of the Strait of Hormuz is particularly contentious. Iran is internally divided on handling the US blockade, with some viewing it as a breach of ceasefire and others as a strategic lever for negotiations.
Iran's Internal Debate and Strategic Choices
Ali Nasri, an Iran-based international lawyer, notes two conflicting views within Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. One perspective advocates exploiting it for revenue, war compensation, and national pride, while the other sees it as a negotiating tool for ceasefire, sanctions relief, and security guarantees. Nasri compares this to the Stanford marshmallow test on delayed gratification, suggesting Iran's future success depends on managing instant temptations for long-term gains.
Ultimately, the path to peace lies between Trump's need to outdo Obama and Iran's strategic patience, with negotiations poised to shape regional stability and global economic impacts.
