‘Alarm bells should be going off’: Will the U.S. allow Iran to keep its nuclear program?

The fact that the U.S. and Iran will hold “expert-level” technical talks on a new nuclear deal could signal that the Trump administration is willing to move off its position that Tehran give up all uranium enrichment capabilities, some specialists warn, and could allow Iran to keep its nuclear program up and running in some form.

The next round of talks, now scheduled to take place Saturday in Oman, is expected to include more detailed discussions about the parameters of a deal, which would center on restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Both the U.S. and Iran said significant “progress” was made during last weekend’s indirect talks between U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, leading to the upcoming discussions between high-level experts from both nations.

Some analysts say the trajectory of the U.S.-Iran negotiations is a serious cause for concern. Mr. Witkoff has publicly said that any deal must include the elimination of Iran’s nuclear enrichment. But the meeting of experts suggests that they’ll be discussing specific percentages around Iran’s uranium enrichment and other highly technical matters — not the permanent end to Tehran’s nuclear program.

“I think alarm bells should be going off,” said Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “When we’re getting to the technical level and they’re working out the technical terms of the deal, that means things have progressed to that level. If the administration is not sticking to its demand for the full, verifiable and permanent dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment capability, its weaponization program and missile-delivery work, I think it could show they have already folded on that key demand.

“There’s no good deal that allows Iran to keep enriching uranium,” Ms. Stricker said in an interview. “Successive U.S. administrations are finding short-term fixes to a long-term problem. Unless that enrichment infrastructure and their ability to make that nuclear fuel is eliminated, all the centrifuges and all the enriched uranium, that threat remains.” 

The administration on Tuesday was tight-lipped about the specifics of negotiations.

“If it involves, of course, negotiations, diplomatic considerations, diplomatic conversations here between American leaders, I’m not going to remark on that,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters when asked about the upcoming U.S.-Iran talks. “As far as what might be next, I have nothing new to report to you at this point.”

What will the U.S. accept?

There is a fear in some national security circles that the administration may be opening the door to a deal that in some ways resembles the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which allowed Iran to maintain its nuclear program but put significant restrictions on uranium enrichment, the spinning of centrifuges, and other aspects of the program.

The JCPOA limited Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67%, enough for nuclear power but not enough for a weapon. Today, Iran enriches uranium up to 60%, which is a short, technical step away from the weapons-grade level of 90%. Iran has a stockpile of more than 18,000 pounds of uranium, according to a February report from the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA during his first term. He said that it left open pathways for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and did not address Tehran’s support for terrorist groups, among other shortcomings.

Last week, ahead of his second round of talks with the Iranians, Mr. Witkoff laid out the clear goal for the U.S. side this time around.

“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal. Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability and prosperity in the Middle East — meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Mr. Witkoff posted on X. “It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do.”

Some analysts believe that if the administration was insisting on the full, permanent end to its nuclear enrichment, Iran wouldn’t be coming back to the table with its expert-level team. 

“If Witkoff was making maximalist demands during his talks with Araghchi, such as dismantlement of the enrichment program, Iran would have no incentive to meet at the technical level,” Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, told the Associated Press this week.

So far, there also has been no clear indication that Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are under serious discussion.

Iran certainly has some economic incentives to strike a deal. The country, some specialists say, is in dire need of the economic boost that would come from the lifting of U.S. sanctions. 

But in order to convince Iran it must give up its nuclear program entirely, the only real motivation is the prospect of direct military action by the U.S. and Israel, said Ms. Stricker, the FDD analyst.

“It has to be between military action or a deal,” she said. The administration “needs to make that trade-off very clear, that it is survival for the regime and maybe some kind of sanctions relief, or we’re going to remove that threat militarily.”