US officials are preparing for a meeting aimed at formulating a new nuclear deal with Iran, but those involved in structuring the previous agreement say the situation is fundamentally different from the first time talks took place.
In 2018, during his first term in office, President Donald Trump withdrew the US from a deal struck by former president Barack Obama's administration and world powers, which put limits on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But shortly after returning to the White House this year, Mr Trump announced he had reached out to Iranian leadership about a new deal.
Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University who was involved in negotiating the original nuclear deal, said the odds of an agreement are “much lower” this time around.
“I was the only member of the team who was convinced that we were going to get a deal – basically the entire time, I never went below 50 per cent,” Mr Nephew told The National, explaining that the previous negotiations had the benefit of starting with a clean slate. “We didn't have years of bad blood having built up, but we do now, and particularly with this president, and in particular with an Iranian system that didn't fully believe that we would commit to a deal in the first place.”
Mr Trump has had a contentious relationship with Iran. After pulling out of the original deal, he instituted a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against Tehran, which he reinstituted soon after taking office.
He also ordered the killing of Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, in Baghdad in 2020. And even after announcing his desire for a new nuclear deal, he has engaged in incendiary rhetoric against Tehran, including saying “there will be bombing” and that it will be a “very bad day for Iran” if talks do not ultimately result in an agreement.
This mistrust is only one of several obstacles facing the teams heading into the talks in Oman.
Gary Samore, the director of the Crown Centre for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University and a member of the team involved in forming the framework of the original deal, said that Mr Obama built up an international coalition – known as the P5+1 that also included China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany – to engage with Iran. Mr Trump, however, has alienated many allies since coming back to power.
“Trump is feuding with the Europeans. He wants to improve ties with Russia, but a ceasefire in Ukraine is elusive. We're entering into a big trade war with China – so the big powers are not lined up to co-operate on Iran,” Mr Samore told The National. “And I think that gives Iran a little bit more latitude, or makes them feel like they're less isolated internationally.”
Russia and China were previously “genuine partners” with the US in wanting to secure a deal, but that's no longer the case, according to Robert Einhorn, who was assistant secretary for nonproliferation in the Clinton administration and special adviser to the Secretary of State for nonproliferation and arms control in the Obama administration, and participated in the talks that led to the original agreement.
“Today is a fundamentally different situation. You have China and Russia having reached a strategic partnership with Iran – neither one of them will do anything to pressure Iran to accept the kind of deal that the US wants,” Mr Einhorn, currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The National.
In addition, there are concerns of mutual intransigence over the future of Iran's nuclear ambitions. The Trump administration has indicated it wants Iran to completely dismantle its programme, while Tehran, which has always insisted that the programme is for peaceful purposes, has rejected that. The previous deal allowed for some enrichment of uranium but with strict limits, to avoid the possibility of Iran possessing enough materials to build a nuclear weapon.
While Iran's nuclear programme has greatly expanded since the previous deal imploded, Tehran may feel more pressure to make a deal with the US, with its economy in tatters and its regional influence on the wane. Mr Samore pointed out that the Iranians also likely view Mr Trump's threat of use of force as more credible than under Mr Obama or his successor Joe Biden.
But for those involved in the formulation of the original agreement, the fear is that if the US does not have a strong team in place, the talks will come to nothing in the end, no matter how much both sides want a deal.
“Of course, there are still nuclear experts and sanctions experts in the US government,” Mr Samore said “But there has been a loss of talent … Biden brought in people that were outside the JCPOA, so I think there's talent there, but so far, I haven't seen any indication that [Middle East envoy Steve] Witkoff has put a team together, and I don't even know who would lead the US negotiations.”
Mr Nephew added that the recent drive by the Trump administration to cut down on government waste by carrying out mass firings of federal employees, some of whom could have contributed knowledge and experience to the negotiations.
“There's still civil servants and experts to the system who could contribute, sure there are,” he said. “But then, you know, it's not clear to me that they're using those people … So my own sense is that they don't really have the team capable to do a similar kind of deal as we got.”
Mr Einhorn also noted a general lack of cohesion in the Trump administration with regard to Iran. Despite the fact that Mr Trump has suggested there could be a military response if talks fail, Mr Einhorn believes the administration is motivated to hammer out a deal.
“I think the most important voice, of course, will be the President's voice and he seems inclined to give diplomacy a real chance,” he said.
