THE international community is demanding immediate, permanent peace between Iran and the United States, motivated by concerns over regional instability and economic impact.
It also calls for the restoration of secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the free flow of commerce. The Pakistani ruling elite is putting in intense efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran, aiming to raise its diplomatic profile and support regional stability by arranging a direct second round of talks. At the same time, Israel is working to hinder the negotiation process, seeking to enhance its own security and further weaken Iran with support from the United States.
Since the ceasefire between the US and Iran, Iran’s uranium enrichment resurfaced as a major obstacle. Alongside other issues, Iran’s nuclear programme has remained a persistent imbroglio, especially its enrichment capability. Tehran has often taken a flexible approach to ease Washington’s concerns and has repeatedly stated it will not develop nuclear weapons. Despite this, Americans remain skeptical of Iran’s nuclear intentions. They believe Iran may one day use the NPT withdrawal clause, like North Korea, to test a nuclear device, which could trigger wider nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Presently, Iran’s uranium enrichment imbroglio has the potential to derail the entire mediation process and restart the war between Israel-US and Iran. Therefore, the urgent need is to critically examine and anticipate a practical a framework for nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States. The security observers ought to address two conflicting questions impartially, without projecting or emphasizing either side’s stance, for a durable peace in the region. They are: Does Iran have a right to enrich uranium? Does Iran not have the right to enrich uranium?
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyau assert that Iran does not have the right to enrich uranium. Therefore, Prime Minister Nathenyahu is insisting on zero enrichment in perpetuity as part of any deal with Iran. President Trump equally sounds uncompromising. He is demanding that Iran abandon its commitment to uranium enrichment, possibly for at least 20 years. Nevertheless, he signaled that Iran’s agreement to a moratorium on uranium enrichment will entail the lifting of US sanctions and the release of billions in frozen Iranian funds. However, the Iranian leadership is unprepared to accept either one’s demand. Instead, they have maintained their right to uranium enrichment enshrined in the NPT.
Realistically, the Trump administration and the Iranian ruling elite have to adopt a flexible approach and solve the uranium enrichment imbroglio diplomatically. Tehran has to accept NPT norms and practices in letter and in spirit. Similarly, Washington has to acknowledge Iran’s right to peaceful or civilian use of nuclear technology and material and lift US sanctions as a confidence-building measure between them.
Jake Sullivan, national security advisor to former President Joe Biden, pointed out that Washington’s demand for non-enrichment will undermine diplomacy. Reflecting on the implications of this stance, he said in April 2025, “I do not think there can be a deal if the United States holds to the line that Iran has to completely surrender in perpetuity its right and capacity to enrich uranium.” He sounds rational because Iran has not accepted unconditional defeat. Therefore, it will not accept the Trump administration’s dictates.
The optimistic news is that Iran is willing to restart constructive nuclear negotiations and may agree to a 5-year moratorium on enrichment and transport 450 kg 60 per cent enriched uranium to another country. President Putin expressed his willingness to export Iranian enriched uranium to Russia as he had previously done to ease the situation for the entry into force of the Iran nuclear deal The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2016.
It is too difficult to correctly assess the detriments of President Trump’s policy towards Iran. Recently, reported that he was demanding that Iran keep only one nuclear site in operation and transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to the United States. Transporting Iranian 60% enriched uranium to the US is manifest; Iran accepted a defeat. Thus, this demand will not be acceptable to the Iranian ruling elite. Fascinatingly, President Trump is seeking a victory through negotiations, after failing to secure one through the deployment of a mighty military machine. Therefore, the uranium enrichment imbroglio will take some time to be settled. To conclude, Iran and the US must adopt a flexible approach within the framework of the NPT to establish a permanent, comprehensive ceasefire in the region.
—The writer is Prof at the School of Politics and IR, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
