By the Aurora editorial team.
As Iran and the United States prepare for a second round of talks in Rome, the diplomatic standoff over Iran's nuclear program reveals the persistent mistrust between the two nations, exacerbated by a recent history of rifts and recriminations. The outlook, though tinged with cautious optimism, still seems far from a stable resolution.
During the first round of talks held in Oman last week, which both sides described as "positive," Tehran expressed its willingness to accept certain limitations on its uranium enrichment program. However, a senior Iranian official warned that Iran will not agree to dismantle its centrifuges or eliminate its stockpile, stressing that these positions are part of the "red lines imposed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
Iran's firmest demand, however, goes beyond the technical realm: guarantees that the United States will not again abandon a potential agreement. This demand directly reflects the experience of the 2015 pact, from which Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, reactivating sanctions that devastated the Iranian economy.
In his return to the political arena and after reactivating the so-called "maximum pressure" policy, Trump has reiterated his unequivocal position: Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. "If they have them, everyone will be in grave danger," the former president declared, sowing new doubts about the viability of any long-term engagement with Washington.
Since the agreement was broken in 2018, Iran has progressively accelerated its nuclear program, surpassing the limits set a decade ago and coming dangerously close to the threshold needed for an atomic bomb. Although Tehran insists its program is for peaceful purposes, the level of enrichment achieved and the lack of transparency regarding certain technical aspects are worrying the international community. Rafael Grossi, director of the IAEA, warned during his recent visit to Tehran that time for an agreement "is running out."
The paradox is evident: while Iran seeks guarantees for a lasting agreement, the United States—especially under Republican administrations—has demonstrated that international commitments can be short-lived. The Biden administration failed to meet Tehran's demands on this point, and with Trump's return as a defining figure in US foreign policy, the prospects for an ironclad deal seem even more remote.
For his part, the new US envoy to the negotiations, Steve Witkoff, has oscillated between conciliatory stances and hardline statements. According to diplomatic sources cited by Iran InternationalTehran reportedly proposed a three-phase agreement that would allow for a return to the original enrichment levels in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. The surprise, according to these sources, was that Witkoff initially seemed willing to accept the proposed framework, only to later harden his public stance.
Tehran has made it clear that it will not negotiate on its missile program—considered beyond the scope of any nuclear deal—nor will it accept complete denuclearization. However, it has opened the door to greater cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which it considers "the only acceptable body" as a technical guarantor.
In this context of rigid positions, conflicting strategic interests, and recent memories of diplomatic betrayal, the negotiations in Rome are presented more as an exercise in containment than a real path toward reconciliation. For Iran, any concession without tangible guarantees could mean a repeat of the cycle of sanctions and isolation. For the United States, any concession without effective oversight poses an unacceptable strategic risk.
What's at stake is not just the containment of a nuclear program, but the redefinition of the rules of the game in a region marked by decades of mistrust, cross-threats, and broken promises.
Photos: Screenshot from YouTube