1. What Happens to Sanctions?
The most immediate and critical issue for Tehran is economic relief. Iran has been clear in its demands: the complete lifting of all US sanctions, both primary ones targeting Iran directly and secondary ones penalizing other nations for doing business
with it. This includes sanctions on its vital oil, banking, and petrochemical sectors. Tehran is also demanding the immediate release of billions in frozen assets. However, Washington has historically favored a gradual, phased approach where sanctions relief is tied to Iran's compliance with its commitments. This fundamental disagreement over the timing and scope of lifting sanctions is a major hurdle. For Iran, a full and immediate economic reprieve is the main incentive for a deal; for the US, retaining the ability to 'snap back' sanctions is its primary source of leverage.
2. Are Ballistic Missiles on the Table?
This is a question where the two sides are not just far apart; they are in different conversations. The United States and its regional allies, particularly Israel, view Iran’s large arsenal of ballistic missiles as a direct threat that must be addressed in any comprehensive agreement. US officials have repeatedly called Iran's refusal to discuss its missile program a 'big problem'. Iran, on the other hand, considers its missile program to be a purely defensive and sovereign capability that is entirely non-negotiable. Iranian officials have stated forcefully that their missiles are “not for negotiations” and will never be part of any deal. With one side seeing it as a core threat and the other as a non-starter for discussion, it's difficult to see how this gap can be bridged in the current framework.
3. How Far Can Iran's Nuclear Program Go?
The original purpose of the nuclear deal was to place strict limits on Iran's nuclear activities. Reviving that goal means answering tough technical questions. What level of uranium enrichment will Iran be permitted? Reports indicate Iran is pushing for acceptance of its enrichment activities, a point of major contention. How large of a uranium stockpile can it maintain? And what will happen to the advanced centrifuges it has developed, which can enrich uranium far more quickly than older models? Some proposals have floated a long-term moratorium on enrichment, but the exact terms remain elusive. After years of stalled diplomacy and Iran's subsequent advancements, defining these limits is more complicated than ever, with each detail having significant implications for Iran’s “breakout time”—the time it would take to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.
4. How Will Anyone Verify a Deal?
Trust is at an all-time low, making verification and monitoring more critical than ever. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported that it lost “continuity of knowledge” over Iran’s program during the recent conflict, meaning its inspectors were not on site and have gaps in their understanding. Any new deal would require Iran to grant robust and intrusive access to IAEA inspectors to ensure it is not pursuing a covert weapons program. Yet, questions remain about how extensive this access will be. Furthermore, Iran is seeking ironclad guarantees that a future US administration cannot unilaterally withdraw from the deal, as happened in 2018. Without a reliable mechanism for verification and a commitment that both sides can trust, any agreement would be built on a foundation of sand.
5. What About Broader Regional Security?
While the immediate focus is on the nuclear file, a shadow looms over the talks: Iran's role in the wider Middle East. The US is deeply concerned about Iran's support for proxy groups and its influence in countries from Iraq to Lebanon. In parallel, a key demand from Tehran is the withdrawal of all US military forces from the region and a formal guarantee against future attacks. These broader security issues are deeply intertwined with the nuclear negotiations. For regional stability, these matters must be addressed, but they are so complex that they are often siloed to make the nuclear talks more manageable. Ignoring them, however, risks allowing a potential nuclear deal to be undermined by ongoing regional conflict and mistrust.
