FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The high-profile nuclear talks between the United States and Iran have now entered a technical phase, after just two rounds of talks brokered by Oman.
The third round of talks, along with separate technical talks, is scheduled for April 26 in Muscat.
The progress in the talks has fueled rumors, especially in Iran, that the administration of US President Donald Trump has backed away from demanding the destruction of Tehran's nuclear program, and is now aiming to limit it.
But analysts warn that it is too early to draw such conclusions.
While the move to technical talks could mean a softening of American demands, analysts say that destroying the nuclear program may still remain the ultimate goal - or at least a tool of pressure.
"I never thought destruction was a credible goal," said Richard Nephew, who served as a sanctions expert on the U.S. team that reached the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
"But if that's still on the Trump administration's mind, then the long-term future remains bleak," he added.
He emphasized that even during the negotiations that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there were technical talks, even when American demands remained maximum.
Jason Brodsky, policy director at the organization United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), sees the current trajectory not as a concession, but as strategic pressure.
"A Trump doctrine on Iran is taking shape, where Iran is given a choice: Either you destroy your nuclear program yourself, or the US and/or Israel will do it for you," he said.
Is Iran trying to waste time?
Some, particularly supporters of dismantling the nuclear program, argue that the Islamic republic is dragging out negotiations until UN sanctions expire.
Britain, France and Germany have threatened to activate the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]'s "automatic resumption" mechanism - which would restore UN sanctions on Tehran - if a deal with the United States is not reached by the end of June.
However, this mechanism expires in October.
Both analysts agree that Iran sees it as worthwhile to drag out the process to avoid pressure, to avoid the return of sanctions, or simply to waste time.
"There is only a certain amount of pressure to pass the time, because even after the expiry of the return mechanism, the US remains a strong adversary with its national sanctions campaign," Nephew said.
"Iran would like to reach a good deal, but if not, it will accept lost time - and possible postponement of any military action - as a consolation prize," he added.
Brodsky offered a tougher stance, calling the negotiations a "shield" that Tehran uses to protect its nuclear work from further scrutiny or action.
"Iran is the only one who loses if the negotiations fail," he said.
"The United States, meanwhile, does not need these talks as much as Iran."
What would a good deal with Iran look like?
Despite skepticism about whether dismantling the nuclear program is still an achievable requirement, analysts agree that a deal that limits Iran's nuclear activities could be valid, if it includes key guarantees.
"The JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] gives us a lot of guidance here," Nephew said.
"There needs to be three things: border verification, physical restrictions so they can't be crossed quickly, and the possibility of consequences if they cheat."
He stressed that, while it is impossible for Iran to give up advanced centrifuges again, as it did in 2015, "there is still room to find a deal."
However, Brodsky is skeptical that any agreement short of complete destruction can truly stop Iran from using its nuclear program as an advantage.
He considers even low-level enrichment - such as the JCPOA's 3.67 percent limit - a threat.
"Its right to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent under the JCPOA was part of a blackmail," he said, referring to Iran's efforts to threaten to develop nuclear weapons.
"The continuation of this negotiation process leads some observers to believe that the US has accepted Iran's right to enrich uranium," Brodsky said.
"I believe the Trump administration is still defining the forms of what an acceptable agreement would look like," he concluded./REL
Lini një Përgjigje