Priyanka Tiwari
Share
This week, Iran and the United States are elevating their nuclear discussions into the expert level, a noticeable shift towards deepening the conversation regarding Tehran’s nuclear ventures. Analysts view this move as a constructive sign of a hardened engagement but not one that suggests an agreement is finalized soon.
The shift to expert level means both Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff have not reached a standstill. It means there is some forward movement in the talks. The focus of negotiations now seems to be the specifics, like how much uranium Iran may be allowed to enrich and what sanctions will be lifted.
Experts argue that details tend to follow great pieces of a covenant placed in loose terms at the senior level. The agreements provided here are pivotal for turning political promises into action that can be measured. In their analysis, had the negotiations been hitting walls because of a take, like complete zeroing of enrichment infrastructure, there would not be this move from working level meetings to expert level meetings.
There still remain many ambiguities. The important ones include what degree of enrichment would the US allow, how far Iran’s missile program might impact the future of the deal, and what economic restrictions would be rendered obsolete. These are sophisticated challenges that need deliberations at the level of deep-level technical specialists, not just at the level of diplomats.The previous deal negotiated in 2015 put restrictions on uranium enrichment at 3.67% with a stockpile limit of 300 kilograms. As of now, Iran enriches uranium to almost weapons-grade levels at 60% and has a stockpile of over 8,000 kilograms. Reports also highlight the number of and types of centrifuges in use are equally important to the outcome of the negotiations.
The effectiveness of the restrictions and verification processes critically hinges on the specialization of those in the negotiating room. Such enforcements are necessary and include timetables on monitoring, ad enforcing guidelines to…and as efficient as possible violations in a timely manner.
No names have been revealed regarding delegates, but the fact that technical level talks have begun shows both parties intend on seriously discussing the issues at hand. The mention of nurturing an enrichment cap at 3.67% came from Witkoff and sparked controversy, seeing as that is the cap set in the 2015 deal during the Obama presidency. He has later stressed that any type of agreement has to be in line with the current US policy, which he dubbed as a “Trump deal,” where Iran is demanded to cease all enrichment activities.
He is met wit rebuttal from Araghchi who changes the narrative to highlight Iran’s stance of uranium enrichment being an indisputable right, but draws out the conversation and highlights a major barrier that causes difficulty in progress.
Even with the differences, some former negotiators and analysts remain gently positive. They mention that the lack of clear refusals or uncompromising red lines indicates a possibility for agreement. Moreover, the tempo of the negotiations and the commencement of meetings at the expert level signifies a readiness to make progress.
Expert opinion still stands that the most challenging part of the talks might have just begun. Discussions at the technical level often get into detail that requires meticulous effort and is tricky. These types of issues are absent, and resolving them is crucial to put in place a sustainable agreement.
The next couple of days will be pivotal. There are positive indicators of productive discussions; however, achievement in this dialogue will openly relied upon concrete commitment from the two parties, as well as the technical side. With the right approach, these dialogues could establish a feasible framework to renew the deal that constrains Iran’s nuclear capabilities and relieves economic burdens.
Read More: Two Student Leaders Step Down From Bangladesh Interim Cabinet Before Election
