Ball of nuclear agreement with Iran in US court

TEHRAN, Feb. 15 (MNA) – As nuclear talks resume in Geneva, the central question is no longer whether Iran and the US can reach a deal, but whether Washington is prepared to demonstrate the political will required to restore trust.

On Tuesday, Geneva will become the scene of one of the most sensitive diplomatic developments in the world, as nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States are held under conditions different from previous years. A city that has previously hosted decisive talks will this time welcome the delegations of the two countries amid the bitter experience of the past, deep mistrust, and regional developments that have made the negotiating atmosphere more complex than ever. The shadow of the previous agreement, namely the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, still looms over these talks; an agreement that was concluded in 2015 after months of intensive negotiations but effectively collapsed with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States in 2018, undermining the path of trust-building.

Today, the main issue is not whether understanding is possible; experience has shown that it is. The key question is whether the necessary political will exists to reach a lasting agreement. From a legal and political standpoint, it was the United States that left the previous agreement and disrupted the mechanism of reciprocal commitments. After Washington’s withdrawal, Iran remained committed to its obligations for a considerable period of time and only took remedial steps when it was effectively deprived of the economic benefits of the deal.

Therefore, under current conditions, the ball is in America’s court. If Washington claims it seeks to resolve the nuclear file, now is the time to prove that claim.
Iran has repeatedly stated that if negotiations are limited to the nuclear issue and proceed with respect for the country’s dignity, independence, and national interests, it is prepared for dialogue and even for providing the necessary guarantees. Tehran has clarified that nuclear weapons have no place in its defense doctrine and that its nuclear program has a peaceful nature. On this basis, Iran can engage in discussions regarding any technical misunderstandings or political concerns and, within a transparent framework, accept agreed monitoring mechanisms.

For Iran, the issue is not the principle of dialogue; it is the framework, balance, and outcome.
In recent years, one of the main axes of pressure from the United States and some of its allies has been the claim that Iran may move toward producing nuclear weapons. This claim is raised despite the fact that Iran has not only rejected it but has also declared its readiness to provide additional guarantees to prove the peaceful nature of its program. If Washington’s real concern is nuclear non-proliferation, the path to addressing it is clear: a return to a transparent, verifiable, and balanced agreement in which both sides implement their commitments simultaneously. Past experience showed that Iran can engage in extensive cooperation within international agreements. Therefore, if the issue is purely nuclear, the ground for understanding exists.

However, there is serious concern that the negotiations could be drawn into a protracted process or that the scope of demands could expand. Previous experience has shown that whenever non-nuclear issues have entered the agenda, the dialogue has become more complex and less productive. Raising topics such as regional matters or Iran’s defensive capabilities falls outside the framework of a nuclear agreement and constitutes a change of rules in the middle of negotiations. If the goal is to resolve a specific file, the focus must remain on that file. Endless expansion of issues not only fails to facilitate agreement but deepens mistrust.
The reality is that a balanced agreement can benefit both sides. 

For Iran, the lifting of sanctions and full return to normal trade and international financial interactions would provide the opportunity for economic growth, investment attraction, and greater stability.

For the United States, reducing tensions in one of the world’s most sensitive regions means lowering security costs, focusing on other foreign policy priorities, and promoting stability in energy markets. Stability in Iran’s nuclear file could have a positive impact on the global oil and gas market and prevent price shocks—an issue of direct importance to the global economy and even to American consumers.

In this context, the role of third parties should not be overlooked. The Israeli regime has over the past years consistently opposed any agreement between Iran and the United States and has sought to present its concerns as shared concerns with Washington. However, the reality is that Israel’s interests do not necessarily fully overlap with America’s strategic interests. For Tel Aviv, continued tension with Iran may serve as a tool for internal cohesion and justification of its security policies, but for the United States, reducing tensions can mean lowering the direct and indirect costs of its presence in the region.

If the Geneva negotiations are to reach a result, the United States must choose between two approaches: either focus on a specific and balanced agreement that addresses only the nuclear issue, or continue a process that, by adding new demands, effectively leads the negotiations to a deadlock. Experience has shown that major agreements require political decisions at the highest level more than technical bargaining. If there is serious will in Washington to resolve this file, the necessary technical and legal instruments can be designed. But if the goal is merely to manage the crisis without resolving it, the negotiations will become prolonged and exhausting.

Iran has declared that it is ready to engage in talks on the nuclear issue and to remove misunderstandings, and can even provide guarantees to address America’s stated concerns. What Tehran does not accept is turning negotiation into a tool for additional pressure or imposing issues outside the framework of the agreement. National dignity and the country’s interests are red lines that any agreement must respect.

Tuesday’s negotiations in Geneva can be seen as a test of intentions. If the United States has truly concluded that a balanced agreement with Iran can benefit both countries and serve regional stability, the path is clear: focus on the nuclear issue, practical lifting of sanctions, provision of reciprocal guarantees, and avoidance of excessive demands. But if the aim is to buy time or expand the scope of negotiations into other areas, the result will be nothing but the continuation of mistrust.

Ultimately, the future of this file depends not only on the text of an agreement but on the political will of the parties. Iran has declared its readiness. Now it is America’s turn to show whether it seeks a real and lasting agreement or merely the repetition of a cycle of promises and pressure. Geneva can become the starting point of a new chapter—one in which diplomacy replaces confrontation—provided that the final decision in Washington is made on the basis of long-term interests rather than external pressures.