3 Potential Scenarios for Iran-US Nuclear Negotiations

According to this publication, Rahborde Moaser, as speculation about the resumption of nuclear talks increases, Tehran and Washington once again find themselves navigating a mix of conflicting messages and indirect contacts. Iranian officials, including Saeed Khatibzadeh and Seyed Abbas Araghchi, have spoken of a profound distrust of America's true intentions while emphasizing readiness to negotiate, "within the framework of national interests and the Leader's directives." While Washington claims Tehran desires an agreement, Iran insists no dialogue will take place without the lifting of sanctions and guarantees respecting its nuclear rights.

In this context, Khatibzadeh, Iran's deputy foreign minister, emphasized yesterday at a strategic forum in Abu Dhabi that, "the U.S. administration is relaying contradictory messages regarding the nuclear negotiations through third parties." Khatibzadeh stressed that "achieving an agreement is only possible within the framework of the Leader's directives." Fatemeh Mahjoub, the government spokeswoman, also noted recently that messages about negotiations have been exchanged, though she said details would be provided later. In early November 2025, Iran's foreign minister told Al Jazeera that Iran is ready to negotiate to address concerns about its nuclear program and is confident of its peaceful nature, emphasizing that reaching a fair agreement is possible. Araghchi, however, stated this possibility is conditional on the U.S. not setting preconditions.

Meanwhile, Esmaeil Bagaei, in response to a question from Eco Iran media at a press conference on Oct. 20, 2025, confirmed that there have been some contacts with the other parties, but stressed this does not mean negotiations have started. He reported recent indirect contacts with the U.S., stating, "As long as there are excessive demands and expectations, no grounds for negotiation and understanding will emerge." This comes as Steve Wittkoff, appearing on the American CBS network's program "60 Minutes" around the same time, claimed, "We're there to, you know, hopefully have a long-term diplomatic solution with Iran." He said America is talking with Iran about this matter. Iran has repeatedly emphasized it will not negotiate with the U.S. under pressure and will never relinquish its unequivocal rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Lifting Sanctions: A Legitimate Demand

Meanwhile, statements regarding the lifting of sanctions are being heard from both sides. Last Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House, "Iran has been asking if the sanctions could be lifted. Iran has got very heavy U.S. sanctions, and it makes it really hard for them to do what they'd like to be able to do. And I'm open to hearing that, and we'll see what happens, but I would be open to it."

In relation to this, on Monday, Bagaei was asked how Iran had conveyed this request to the Americans, given the U.S. president's statement that Iran had asked for sanctions to be lifted. He responded, "The lifting of sanctions is a legitimate demand of the Iranian nation, not a favor the U.S. or anyone else might grant Iran. A right has been violated, and for decades, the people of Iran, indeed every single Iranian, has been unjustly subjected to sanctions. These sanctions are a crime against humanity due to the consequences and effects they have had on Iranian citizens and their enjoyment of fundamental human rights."

Iran's Insistence on an Inalienable Right

According to a Reuters report, Iran's deputy foreign minister also emphasized that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not compromise on matters of national security. He reiterated that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and added that the country is proud of a nuclear program built on domestic capability.

The US Acts in Reverse

Furthermore, in recent days, after admitting to authorizing the attack on Iran, the U.S. president stated that Iran wants a deal, claiming, "They're great negotiators, they don't say they want to meet, but they really do."* Regarding this, the spokesman for Iran’s diplomatic apparatus stated at Monday's press conference, "My view on this matter is that it is the reverse; the Americans say they want an agreement, but in reality, they do not, and they take no practical action toward an agreement and act conversely." He emphasized, "They have shown in practice that they have no goodwill or seriousness in this regard."

Despite Iran's active participation in the indirect diplomatic process with the U.S. administration under President Trump to reach a negotiated solution for limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, Iran faced a betrayal of diplomacy by the U.S. The U.S. president — who was directly involved in the Israeli attack on Iran on June 22 which targeted nuclear sites in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow — claims the attacks destroyed Iran’s nuclear program and, through exaggeration, demands zero enrichment in Iran.

A Positive Signal to Neighbors

Khatibzadeh also stated at the Abu Dhabi strategic forum that Tehran wants to move toward improving relations with neighboring countries in the region. This statement was made as Iran and the countries of the southern Persian Gulf littoral are pursuing growing relations. Following the diplomatic reconciliation mediated by China, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been experiencing a period of reduced tensions, and other countries such as Bahrain, Oman and Qatar have recently called for the resumption of talks between Iran and the United States.

Scenarios

Given this landscape of red lines and contradictory signals and messages, three potential scenarios can be outlined if these signals lead to a return to the negotiating table.

Scenario 1: Controlled Return to Talks

In this case, indirect contacts, likely mediated by Oman, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates, lead to formal, indirect negotiations. Within this framework, Tehran would be willing to engage in talks concerning a limited framework for the partial lifting of sanctions in exchange for caps on enrichment levels and the resumption of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Signs of this scenario can be traced in recent statements by Khatibzadeh and Araghchi regarding the "possibility of a fair agreement." Furthermore, analysts view Washington's desire to reduce oil price pressure on the global market as another indicator of this scenario. The consequence of this would be the gradual restoration of trust and the formation of a temporary agreement or an executive understanding.

Scenario 2: Signals without Progress

In the second scenario, the two sides remain on the path of political signaling, but no real dialogue materializes. Tehran continues to use indirect contacts and Washington utilizes sanctions as a tool for pressure. Signs of this scenario can be assessed through contradictory statements by American officials regarding Iran's intentions and Tehran's emphasis on red lines and the rejection of preconditions. The consequence of this scenario would be a continued climate of distrust, the erosion of diplomacy, and, as a result, an increased role for third-party actors (Saudi Arabia, Russia and China) in crisis management.

Scenario 3: Escalation and Breakdown

In the third scenario, triggered by the failure of contacts and increased pressure from Washington or provocative actions by Israel, Iran decides to distance itself from the negotiation process and advance its nuclear activities at a faster pace. Signs of this scenario could include renewed attacks on nuclear facilities under the pretext of Tehran returning to higher-level enrichment, and harsh statements ruling out compromise. The consequences of this scenario would be increased military tension in the Persian Gulf, the potential renewed referral of Iran's file to the Security Council, reduced cooperation with the IAEA, and strengthened alignment with the East (China and Russia).

*Editor's note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be independently verified.