How Iran views a return to nuclear talks

Iran will only re-enter nuclear talks if the US offers clear aims and takes steps to rebuild trust – but will abide by a ceasefire if Israel does the same, current and former Iranian officials told The National.

Iran was surprised by the sudden Israeli attack on June 13, which came two days before a sixth round of talks was scheduled between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Those talks were cancelled, as Iran said negotiations with the US were meaningless while conflict raged with America's strongest ally in the Middle East.

“Regarding the talks, we need to see whether the opposing sides will enter in good faith or not,” an analyst in Tehran told The National. “We never left the negotiating table, but with the treacherous behaviour of the US and Israel, there is no table left for negotiations.”

For months before Israel’s attacks, the two sides had been negotiating in an attempt to reach a deal for limitations on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. With delegations led by Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, they had completed five rounds of talks.

But the discussions hit roadblocks over disagreements on Tehran’s rights to enrich uranium, perhaps with limits. That prompted US support for Israel’s operations, and eventually direct American strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. Many in Iran believed Israel struck to derail the negotiations, which it had long opposed.

Iran retaliated, carrying out its most intense direct missile strikes on Israel in history. It also carried out a more carefully calculated response to the US attacks by launching strikes at a base in Qatar housing US troops on Monday night.

Perturbed by US President Donald Trump’s support for Israel’s military action while more diplomatic engagement was planned, Iranian officials are now seeking “confidence-building measures” as part of any return to talks, the observers said.

“The opposing side must prove that it is reliable this time with confidence-building measures,” said the analyst, who is close to the Iranian government. “We will wait until there is good faith and a new initiative.”

Such measures could include the lifting of sanctions, or the release of frozen Iranian funds, the analyst said. “It’s giving concessions to Iran as an incentive for dialogue,” he added.

It is not clear who might lead a new initiative to resume talks. Oman mediated previous rounds of nuclear talks and played a crucial role in achieving the Iran-Israel ceasefire that came into effect on Tuesday.

Fragile ceasefire

Iranians also want a stabilisation of that ceasefire before formulating plans for a possible return to negotiations. Israel has broken ceasefire agreements in Gaza and Lebanon, stoking pessimism over the longevity of the unwritten agreement with Tehran. In Lebanon, Israel has also accused Iran-backed Hezbollah of breaching a ceasefire agreement reached after a conflict last year.

At the same time, Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure has been significantly damaged over 12 days of conflict. It seeks to abide by a ceasefire if Israel does not breach it.

“If the regime [Israel] does not take any aggressive actions, Iran will not react either,” a government official told The National.

The prospect of negotiations with the US has become more challenging, the observers said. That is partly because the public mood in Iran has grown more hostile to engagement with the US. But it is also because Iran wants clear signals from Washington that it is serious about a return to diplomacy over military action.

“These days, discussions revolve around what Iran could realistically expect from US negotiations: lifting sanctions? Removing threats?” Sasan Karimi, a former deputy vice president for strategic affairs, told The National. “I believe the United States must, once and for all, clearly and loudly articulate what Iran can expect from any talks.”

Providing a clear US road map for diplomacy, or incentives for Iran to engage, will be politically difficult for Mr Trump. Iran hawks in Washington oppose any perceived concessions to Tehran.

“Trump has to ensure that these conditions are met: no enrichment, no reprocessing, no strategic missiles, and full nuclear dismantlement. And there should be no sanctions relief,” said Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a pro-Israel think tank in Washington.

While the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear sites from the Israeli and US strikes remains unclear, Iran also faces the challenge of a weakened relationship with the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Iran's parliament on Wednesday approved a bill to suspend co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after Tehran accused the organisation of “bias” in favour of Israel. The body had formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years a day before Israel struck Iran.

Co-operation with the IAEA was a crucial part of a previous nuclear deal struck between Tehran and global powers in 2015 during the Obama administration, and refusal to allow its inspectors into Iran could be another roadblock in any future negotiations.

Mr Trump withdrew from the previous deal in his first term. Talks resumed this year after the US leader claimed he could strike a better deal, but he never ruled out military action.

In the previous rounds of nuclear talks, Iran accused the US of inconsistency in its positions. Iranian officials initially understood that the US was willing to allow some level of uranium enrichment, as long as Tehran did not use it to develop a nuclear weapon – a threshold it denies seeking.

Later in the talks, the US position changed to a zero-enrichment limitation, leaving Iranian officials unclear of Mr Witkoff’s remit and sceptical of the influence of those pushing for a ban on enrichment.

“Iran’s firm responses have shown that it is the US that must take clear, confidence-building actions and statements to demonstrate it isn’t approaching talks from a position of superiority, as if Iranians have never negotiated with the US in good faith, or won’t do so again,” Mr Karimi said.