A Chasm of Distrust
The single biggest obstacle is a profound lack of trust. From Iran's perspective, the US is an unreliable partner. The 2018 American withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, serves as a constant reminder
that any new agreement could be unilaterally abandoned by a future administration. This has led Tehran to demand ironclad guarantees that the US cannot, or will not, provide. Iran has sought assurances that sanctions will not only be lifted but will stay lifted, a promise difficult for any US president to make given the powers of Congress. This history of broken promises and coercive tactics, including military threats, has created a cycle of confrontation that erodes the foundation needed for successful negotiations.
Domestic Politics as a Veto Power
Both governments face intense pressure from hardline factions at home. In Washington, any deal with Iran faces stiff opposition in Congress, where critics argue that such agreements are too lenient and fail to address Iran's other activities. This domestic political landscape means any administration must navigate a narrow path to secure a deal that won't be immediately undermined. In Tehran, conservative elements and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) view negotiations with suspicion, arguing that concessions compromise national sovereignty. These internal divisions mean that even when negotiators find common ground, leaders in both capitals must sell the deal to a skeptical, and often hostile, domestic audience.
The Devil in the Diplomatic Details
Beyond the big picture, the specific technical demands of each side are formidable. The US has pushed for what Iran considers “maximalist” demands, such as zero uranium enrichment, the dismantling of key nuclear facilities, and shipping all enriched uranium out of the country. Iran, in turn, has refused to accept a permanent freeze on its nuclear program and insists on its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Other sticking points include the extent and timing of sanctions relief and the level of access international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have to Iranian sites. These are not minor disagreements; they are fundamental differences about the scope and limits of Iran's nuclear program.
Wider Conflicts in a Volatile Region
The negotiations do not exist in a vacuum. The United States and its regional allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, are deeply concerned about Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for proxy groups across the Middle East, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. While the US has tried to expand talks to include these issues, Iran has consistently stated that its missile program is non-negotiable and purely for defensive purposes. For Israel and Saudi Arabia, the fear is that sanctions relief from a nuclear deal would empower Iran economically, allowing it to increase its regional influence and pose a greater threat. This regional opposition creates significant pressure on Washington to secure a broader deal that addresses more than just the nuclear file, a condition Iran rejects.
