Can the United States and Iran reach a nuclear deal to avoid war?

As President Trump’s threat to attack Iran looms over discussions, U.S. and Iranian negotiators met again in Switzerland on Thursday, separately, for another round of talks mediated by Oman, focusing on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Iran says it does not have and will not build a nuclear weapon, and Mr. Trump has said will not allow Tehran to acquire one, a position he shares with his recent predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

The Obama administration spent months negotiating an international agreement to limit and monitor Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. But during his first term, Trump attacked the pact as “horrible” and took out the US. Since returning to the White House, Trump has threatened to attack Iran if it does not reach a new deal to curb its nuclear activities.

Despite warnings from many nations in the Middle East and elsewhere, including Iran, that any US attack could spark a major international conflict, Trump has ordered the largest US military concentration in the Middle East in decades, putting pressure on Tehran to close the deal it wants.

Trump has given no indication whether he has decided to use force as talks continue, so News themezone asked people with deep knowledge of Iran and the country’s hardline Islamic rulers to try to assess the prospects for a deal emerging from the talks to avoid war.

What Iran and the Trump administration have said

During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump repeated his claim that the United States “wiped out Iran’s nuclear weapons program” with strikes in June, a claim by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the The IAEA has recently questioned — and said despite his warnings: “They are starting all over again. We eliminated it and they want to start again and right now they are pursuing their sinister ambitions again.”

The president has repeatedly said he prefers a diplomatic solution to the standoff, but is willing to use the U.S. military if he deems it necessary.

Trump claimed in his remarks Tuesday that Iran had never ruled out building a nuclear weapon, but the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi promised not long before the U.S. leader spoke that Iran would “under no circumstances develop a nuclear weapon.”

“We have a historic opportunity to reach an unprecedented agreement that addresses mutual concerns and achieves mutual interests,” Araghchi said in a social media post, adding that an agreement was “within reach, but only if diplomacy is prioritized.”

Araghchi insisted, however, on Iran’s right to “harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology,” hinting at one of the main sticking points that negotiators in Geneva will have to work on.

While he did not reiterate the demand – pushed heavily by Israel – in his State of the Union address, Trump has previously said that any new nuclear deal with Iran should include completely abandoning all domestic uranium enrichment. That is something Tehran has said it cannot accept.

“Enrichment is our right,” Araghchi reiterated on Sunday on the News program.Take on the nation with Margaret Brennan“, noting that Iran is “a member of the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] and we have every right to enjoy peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment.”

Araghchi said he couldn’t predict whether President Trump intends to attack his country, but told Brennan, “I think there’s still a good chance of having a diplomatic solution, one that’s based on a win-win game,” and said a solution to the standoff “is within our reach.”

‘War seems inevitable,’ says Iran expert

Despite this public expression of optimism from Iran, Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the Chatham House think tank in London, believes the two sides are still too far apart. She told News themezone on Wednesday that, in her opinion, a military confrontation is inevitable and soon.

“I think it’s imminent; I mean, it’s a matter of days. War seems inevitable to me because not only has President Trump been amassing a huge arsenal to attack Iran, but also because President Trump has been clearly indicating that he is seeking the submission of the Islamic Republic to terms and conditions that Iran’s leaders currently do not seem willing to accept.”

“The main thing Iran can offer is a commitment not to enrich uranium above a certain grade inside Iran for several years,” Vakil said. “It’s worth mentioning that Iran is no longer enriching uranium and hasn’t done so since last summer’s June War, when the United States struck Iran’s nuclear facilities and buried its enrichment program. So that’s already happening de facto, and Iran can give that concession to President Trump.”

“But what Iran is simultaneously seeking is an assertion of its nuclear rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty,” Vakil said. “Iran does not want to be singled out. Iran wants to be treated like all the other signatories. And so what they are looking for is the ability to enrich uranium to very low levels for medical purposes. And that would be how they would compromise this principle.”

“I believe that the maximum concessions that the ayatollahs can offer will not meet the minimum requirements of the White House. Both sides have their red lines and it is difficult to see how an agreement can be reached without one side making major concessions,” Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist and activist and News themezone contributor, said before the talks in Geneva.

He said there were rumors that the Trump administration might consider a deal that would allow Iran to maintain “a token enrichment program, like a research facility,” for example. But he notes that, given Trump’s vehement criticism of the previous deal negotiated by the Obama administration, he now “needs a much better deal.”

The nuances of Iran’s nuclear program were clearly a key aspect of Thursday’s talks, when the head of the UN IAEA again joined delegations in Geneva.

Iran’s ballistic missiles “are also a big concern,” Alinejad said, referring to the massive amount of conventional weapons that Iranian leaders have threatened to target Israel and U.S. military facilities across the Middle East if Trump orders strikes.

“A deal that leaves the Islamic Republic’s nuclear enrichment facilities intact and allows them to keep their missiles would be seen as a total failure,” he said.

The risks of a new “eternal war”

Vakil said Iran was now in a much weaker position “than ever” given the damage inflicted on the country’s nuclear program by the United States in June, and its allied “proxy groups” in the region by Israel during its war with Hamas.

But there are still significant risks for Trump, given fears that new US military action could trigger a regional war.

“If the United States attacks us, that is an act of aggression. What we do in response is an act of self-defense,” Araghchi said before the talks. “And it’s justifiable and legitimate. So, our missiles can’t reach American soil, so obviously we have to do something else: we have to attack, you know, American bases in the region.”

American commanders have explained to a frustrated presidentsources told News themezone this week, that there may be no quick and easy military option to deliver a blow that forces Iran to capitulate to their demands. That means a protracted conflict may be inevitable if a first strike is carried out.

“I’m concerned that President Trump has painted himself into a corner,” Alinejad said. “The US military is certainly capable of inflicting unprecedented damage on the forces of the Islamic Republic, but what is the end result? What is the grand strategy here? This needs to be clarified. Any installation that is destroyed can be rebuilt and the military cannot remain in the Persian Gulf forever.”

Such a sustained military commitment could be a difficult sell to the American public, especially given Trump’s previous public disdain for protracted conflicts.

“He has opposed ‘forever wars’ and operations like the 2003 Iraq war. So the Iranians are playing on that,” Vakil told News themezone, “hoping that it might deter President Trump and draw him toward a deal.”

Overall, Vakil and Alinejad expressed serious doubts that the ongoing diplomacy will close the gap between Tehran and Washington’s positions, and both expressed significant concern about what that means for the Iranian people.

“The Islamic Republic is detested by the majority of the Iranian people. But they need help to confront the regime’s revolutionary guards and other paramilitary units. I am hopeful that the American attack will have a major impact,” Alinejad said.

“People are sick and tired of the Islamic Republic and deeply despise Iran’s supreme leader,” Vakil agreed, but added: “There is a lot of concern about what comes next. There is no plan for the so-called day after. People recognize that this is a regime that is much stronger and more willing to use coercive and brutal force. And over a longer period of time, there are concerns about Iran’s fragmentation, chaos, civil war and violence.”

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who was mediating the discussions in Geneva on Thursday See, he said in a social media post that the first few hours produced “creative and positive ideas.” He said meetings would resume later in the day after a break, when “we hope to make more progress.”