Trump’s ultimatum spurs U.S.-Iran nuclear deal breakthrough talks in Oman

Why Are Iran and the U.S. Revisiting Nuclear Negotiations in 2025?

In a renewed diplomatic push, the United States and Iran have agreed to begin drafting a framework for a potential nuclear agreement following reported “very good progress” in recent backchannel discussions. The initiative marks a significant development after years of stalled diplomacy, growing regional tensions, and escalating rhetoric—particularly from the U.S., where President Donald Trump has issued a blunt ultimatum: agree to new terms within 60 days or face the possibility of military intervention.

The talks, held in Rome and mediated by the Sultanate of Oman, featured Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and U.S. special envoy for Middle East affairs Steve Witkoff. According to statements from the Iranian side, the two delegations have tasked technical experts with beginning work on a structured framework aimed at reviving a nuclear accord under updated terms. A follow-up expert meeting is slated for next week in Oman, with a second review session already scheduled to track any breakthrough.

What Led to This Resumption in U.S.-Iran Nuclear Diplomacy?

The origins of this renewed dialogue trace back to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief from global powers, including the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia. However, in 2018, during his first term, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement, calling it “deeply flawed” and subsequently reinstating severe sanctions on Iran. This move led to Tehran gradually breaching key commitments under the deal, including enrichment levels and stockpile limits.

Since then, sporadic efforts to restore the JCPOA—or to construct a parallel agreement—have faltered under multiple U.S. and Iranian administrations. Although the Biden administration attempted to reengage with Tehran in 2021 and 2022, progress was slow and eventually collapsed amid disagreements over compliance sequencing, regional security clauses, and Tehran’s insistence on removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from the U.S. terrorism blacklist.

Now, under a second Trump administration, the calculus appears to be shifting again—this time under more coercive conditions. With U.S.-Iran tensions having reached periodic peaks over maritime clashes, proxy conflicts, and ballistic missile development, the current talks are widely viewed as an attempt to avert open conflict.

What Are the Core Demands and Red Lines in the Emerging Nuclear Deal Framework?

While neither side has released the full list of working proposals, key themes have emerged. Iranian officials continue to insist that their nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, but remain open to verifiable limits on enrichment levels and transparency measures through International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring. However, Iran has ruled out dismantling its advanced centrifuges or reducing its enriched uranium stockpile to pre-2018 levels.

For the U.S., the primary objective is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, ideally by extending the “breakout time”—the period Iran would need to assemble a bomb—beyond one year. Washington also seeks tighter inspection protocols and mechanisms to swiftly reimpose sanctions should Iran violate the new agreement’s terms.

Trump administration officials, according to U.S. media reports, have also tied any agreement to broader regional considerations, including Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its military support to proxy groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. However, Tehran has so far rejected any deal conditions that go beyond the nuclear file, viewing such demands as strategic overreach.

How Is the International Community Reacting to the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks?

Global reaction to the renewed dialogue has been cautious but supportive. The European Union’s foreign policy service described the Rome meetings as “a meaningful re-entry point” for structured negotiations. Russia and China, while largely critical of Washington’s prior withdrawal from the JCPOA, have maintained diplomatic engagement with Tehran and expressed openness to a revised agreement that preserves non-proliferation norms.

Israel, by contrast, has voiced deep skepticism, with government officials warning that any new agreement must contain explicit enforcement mechanisms and real-time intelligence sharing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to assert that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability, a charge Tehran denies.

The IAEA, which plays a central role in verification, has urged both parties to ensure that inspectors are granted full access to declared and suspected nuclear sites. The agency has previously reported significant shortfalls in Iran’s cooperation following the collapse of the JCPOA.

What Are the Risks if the U.S. and Iran Fail to Reach a Nuclear Agreement?

Failure to reach an agreement within the 60-day timeline imposed by President Trump could dramatically escalate the situation. The White House has not ruled out the use of military force, and defence officials have reportedly reviewed targeting scenarios for suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, any conflict would likely trigger retaliatory strikes by Iranian-aligned forces across the Middle East, disrupting global oil supplies and threatening regional security.

Economically, the stakes are also high. Iranian oil exports remain under pressure from U.S. sanctions, limiting Tehran’s access to foreign currency and contributing to domestic inflation and public unrest. For Washington, a sharp rise in oil prices amid geopolitical tensions could disrupt global markets and complicate domestic economic policy heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

From a non-proliferation standpoint, failure to strike a deal could push Iran closer to the nuclear threshold, setting off a cascade of regional nuclear ambitions. Saudi Arabia has previously hinted at developing its own capabilities should Iran obtain weapons-grade enrichment.

Could This Be a Step Toward a Broader U.S.-Iran Rapprochement?

While the current talks are narrowly focused on the nuclear issue, they may open the door to broader de-escalation if mutual trust begins to build. Historical precedent offers mixed lessons: the 2015 JCPOA did not yield substantial progress on other fronts like human rights, regional conflicts, or ballistic missiles, but it did reduce the risk of military confrontation for several years.

Experts suggest that any sustainable solution must involve ongoing diplomacy rather than a one-off agreement. This includes channels for dispute resolution, periodic reviews of compliance, and parallel efforts to reduce tensions through multilateral engagement, including with Gulf states and European allies.

As of now, both Washington and Tehran appear to be pursuing a fragile convergence of interests. For Iran, sanctions relief is urgently needed to stabilise its economy. For the U.S., preventing a nuclear-armed Iran without resorting to war remains a strategic imperative. The next few weeks will reveal whether expert-level negotiations can translate “very good progress” into a durable agreement—or whether diplomacy once again gives way to confrontation.