On Iran, What’s Left to Discuss?

By Noah Rothman

Friday, May 16, 2025

 

The president’s position is that Iran must commit to a “total dismantling” of its nuclear capabilities. The Trump administration’s position in talks with Iran has been far less clear about what that meant. More recently, however, the voices within Trump’s orbit who imagined that this might leave room for some domestic Iranian uranium enrichment have been drowned out by others who stress the need to see Tehran verifiably give up its centrifuges.

 

Those within the Trump administration who will not settle for a second Obama-style Iran deal that legitimizes Iran’s enrichment capabilities were joined by most of the Republican House conference this week. In an open letter signed by 177 of the GOP’s 220-member majority, GOP lawmakers emphasized the need to “secure a deal with Iran that dismantles its nuclear program” and affirms “that the regime must permanently give up any capacity for enrichment.”

 

Clear as day, right? If the demand for a “total dismantling” of the Iranian nuclear program is what the administration conveyed in a written message to Tehran this week, we got our answer today:

That seems to reflect the regime’s position. In an effort to satisfy Washington’s demands without giving up its domestic enrichment capability, Iran floated the prospect of a regional enrichment program in which it would participate. International observers, including potentially the United States, could monitor that consortium’s activities to ensure that nothing untoward was going on — right up to the moment that Iran cuts off access to its nuclear facilities.

 

It’s not a new idea and would preserve Iranian enrichment capabilities, but the mullahs hope that Washington will care less about the specifics of the deal than the existence of something that could be called a deal.

 

We can only hope the Iranians have miscalculated, but there are plenty of advocates for a humbler American foreign policy who believe that the key to peace in the Middle East is to allow Iran to preserve its ability to build an atomic bomb.

 

Trump’s “Zero enrichment’ fantasies will lead us to war,” read the headline on an item published by the Iranian regime advocate Trita Parsi published by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — an institution that has proven influential to and received the attention of critics of American foreign policy in the administration, including Vice President JD Vance.

 

It’s odd, then, that the United Arab Emirates, for example, manages to maintain a civilian nuclear energy industry. And yet, by purchasing fissile material from abroad while declining to fund terrorism and launch ballistic missiles at Israel, Dubai has somehow managed to avoid armed conflict with the United States.

 

If the outlook articulated by Parsi and others prevails, Iran’s insistence on preserving its uranium enrichment capabilities is no deal breaker. If, however, the Trump administration is serious about its desire to avoid the traps into which Barack Obama fell, the deal is off. What’s left to talk about?