Iran Nuclear Deal Talks Restart in Vienna

As of this week, representatives of Iran are set to meet with world powers in Vienna to pick up the pieces of 2015’s nuclear deal and engage in final negotiations that began in April of last year. Al Jazeera reports that delegates from China, Iran, France, Russia, Germany, and the UK are expected to be present. Iran and the U.S. have not engaged in direct talks since 2018, when harsh sanctions imposed by former President Donald Trump were followed by the United State’s withdrawal from the deal. This will be a continuation of the eighth round of talks that began in November of last year. The two sides have made some progress but still have differences to reconcile. While this discussion is speculated to be the final round, there is certainly an emphasis on the fact that both sides must reach a mutual agreement close to the original 2015 deal and remain diplomatic in the final stages of this drawn-out process. 

The US has announced that a deal is in sight, but according to White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, “if it’s not reached in the coming weeks, Iran’s ongoing nuclear advances will make it impossible for us to return to the JCPOA,” referring to the deal’s official name. Tehran warned that the removal of US sanctions was critical to putting the deal back on track, while Atlantic Council’s Barbara Slavin has expressed her belief that Iran needs to accept the U.S. position on sanctions relief. “Not all Trump-era sanctions will be removed, but those inconsistent with the JCPOA will be waived and Iran will get access to $100 billion in hard currency reserves abroad,” Slavin commented. Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister has stated that “parts of our demands on lifting sanctions have not been considered.”

It’s clear to observers that both sides need this new nuclear deal for their own reasons. However, to restate what is already clear about these talks, Iran and the U.S. must show a willingness to reach an agreement, even if that means sacrificing some of the terms in the original 2015 deal. A path forward is heavily dependent not only on an agreement between Iran and the U.S. but coherence within their respective governments. In the U.S., intra-governmental differences have prohibited agreement on the removal of all the sanctions, leaving Iran feeling like their demands have not been considered. Likewise, internal disagreements in Iran remain over the degree to which sanctions must be lifted. The longer talks continue with no end deal to show for, the more room is created for voices within each government to forestall negotiations. 

The Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was originally put into place in 2015. Under its terms, billions of dollars worth of sanctions had been lifted from Iran in exchange for the dismantling of its nuclear program and a more extensive inspection process of its facilities. However, the agreement has been threatened since former President Trump withdrew the U.S. in 2018. Since then, Iran has gradually grown its nuclear efforts in retaliation to sanctions that remain in place. Additionally, attempts at talks to revisit the original deal have been on and off for the past year, as both parties struggled with disagreements over the degree to which they’re willing to concede to the other side. In the U.S., Biden faces opposition from a group of Republican Senators. Al Jazeera reports that many in Washington still support the “maximum pressure” approach used by the Trump presidency. Despite this, there is a willingness to rejoin the pact given that Tehran honors the terms of the original accord. 

“Iran needs economic relief and the United States does not want to see Iran as a threshold nuclear state and an ongoing crisis in the Middle East,” says Vali Nasr, a professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University. The needs of both countries have been placed on the negotiating table, and now it is a matter of both governments holding up their end of an interrupted deal from 2015. A compromise from both sides should now be emphasized as a critical means to moving forward productively. Given the drawn-out nature of this issue, the importance of efficiency in reaching an agreement should also be considered. The generally positive rhetoric surrounding these talks, citing progress and cautious optimism, leaves room for hope that we will see a finalized deal in the coming weeks.

Latest posts by Hayes Hollar (see all)

Related