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

With President Trump’s threat to attack Iran looming, US-Iranian talks resumed in Switzerland on Thursday, separately, for another round of talks hosted by Oman, focused on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

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

The Obama administration has spent months negotiating an international treaty to enforce and monitor Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. But in his first time, Mr. Trump attacked the deal as “scary” again he took out the US. Since returning to the White House, Mr. Trump has threatened to hit Iran if it does not make a new deal to curb its nuclear activities.

Despite warnings from many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, including Iran, that any US strike could cause major international conflict, Mr. a large American military structure in the Middle East for decades, pressuring Tehran to make the deal it wants.

Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he has decided to use force as talks continue, so CBS News asked people with deep knowledge of Iran and the country’s hardline Muslim rulers to try to weigh the chances of a deal emerging from the talks to avoid war.

What Iran and the Trump Administration Say

During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, Mr. Trump repeated his claim that the US “destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons program” with strikes in June – a claim by the UN nuclear watchdog, The IAEA, recently cast doubt – and he said that despite his warnings, “they started over. We finished it and they want to start over and this time they are pursuing their evil desires.”

The president has repeatedly said he prefers a political solution to the conflict but is willing to use the US military if necessary.

Mr. Trump in his remarks on Tuesday said that Iran has never decided whether to develop a nuclear weapon, but the country’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, vowed shortly before the US leader to speak that Iran “will never develop a nuclear weapon.”

“We have a historic opportunity to enter into an unprecedented agreement that addresses common concerns and serves common interests,” Araghchi said in a social media post, adding that a deal “is within reach, but only if negotiations are prioritized.”

Araghchi insisted, however, on Iran’s right to “use peaceful nuclear technology assignments” – pointing to one of the main sticking points that negotiators in Geneva will have to work on.

Although he did not repeat the demand – pushed hard by Israel – in his State of the Union speech, Mr. Trump has said that any new nuclear deal with Iran must include a complete abandonment of all domestic uranium enrichment. That is something Tehran has said it will not accept.

“Enrichment is our privilege,” Araghchi said Sunday on CBS’ “Face 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 could not predict whether President Trump intends to attack his country, but told Brennan, “I believe there is still a good chance to have a diplomatic solution, based on a game of victory,” calling a solution to this problem “at our reach.”

“War seems inevitable,” said one Iranian expert

Despite this public expression of optimism on the part of Iran, Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at the Chatham House thinktank in London, believes that the two sides are still very far apart. He told CBS News on Wednesday that, in his view, military conflict is inevitable, and soon.

“I think it’s imminent – I mean it’s a matter of days. War seems inevitable to me because President Trump has not only been amassing a massive arsenal to strike Iran, but also because President Trump has been making it clear that he wants the Islamic Republic to surrender on terms and conditions that Iran’s leaders right now don’t seem willing to do.”

“The main thing Iran can give is a commitment not to enrich uranium beyond a certain level inside Iran for several years,” Vakil said. “It is fair to say that Iran is not already enriching uranium and has not been since the June war last summer when the United States struck Iran’s nuclear weapons and buried its enrichment program. So that is already happening, and Iran can give that permission to President Trump.”

“But what Iran wants at the same time is the confirmation of its nuclear rights like signing a non-proliferation agreement,” said Vakil. “Iran doesn’t want to be singled out. Iran wants to be treated like all the other signatories. So what it wants is the ability to enrich uranium to very low levels for therapeutic purposes. And that would be the way it withdraws from this system.”

“I believe that the maximum approval that can be given by the ayatollahs 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 a big deal,” said CBS News contributor Masih Alinejad, an Iranian-American journalist and activist, before the talks in Geneva.

He said there are rumors that the Trump administration may consider a deal that allows Iran to maintain a “token enrichment program, like a research facility,” for example. But he notes that since Mr. Trump strongly criticized the previous deal negotiated by the Obama administration, now he “needs a better deal.”

The nuances of Iran’s nuclear program were apparently an important part of the talks on Thursday, as the head of the UN’s IAEA rejoined delegates in Geneva.

Iran’s ballistic missiles are “also a big problem,” Alinejad said, referring to the large number of conventional weapons Iran’s leaders have threatened to target in Israel and the deployment of American troops in the Mideast if Mr.

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

The dangers of the new “eternal war”.

Vakil said Iran is now in a much weaker position “than before,” given the damage the US caused to the country’s nuclear program in June, and the “proxy groups” allied with it in the region by Israel during its war with Hamas.

But there are still big risks for Mr. Trump, fearing that new US military action will trigger a regional war.

“If the US 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 justified and legal. So, our missiles can’t hit American soil, so obviously we have to do something else – we have to hit, you know, American bases in the region.”

US commanders have explained the frustrated presidentsources told CBS News this week, that there may not be a quick, easy military way to deliver a blow that will force Iran to agree to its demands. That means a lengthy dispute may be inevitable when the first claim is made.

“I am concerned that President Trump may have painted himself into a corner,” said Alinejad. “The US military can undoubtedly do incomparable damage to the Islamic army but what is the result? What is the best strategy here? This needs to be clarified. Any facility that is destroyed can be rebuilt and the military cannot stay in the Persian Gulf forever.”

Such a military commitment would be difficult for the American public, especially if Mr. Trump has been disdainful of the public because of the controversy.

“He was against ‘permanent wars,’ and he was against operations like the 2003 Iraq war. So, the Iranians are playing on that,” Vakil told CBS News, “hoping that would deter President Trump and lure him out of the deal.”

Overall, Vakil and Alinejad expressed deep skepticism that continued diplomacy will close the gap between the positions held by Tehran and Washington, and both expressed deep concern about what that means for the Iranian people.

“The Islamic Republic is hated by the majority of Iranians. But they need help to fight against the Revolutionary Guards and other paramilitary units. I hope that the US attack will have a big impact,” said Alinejad.

“People are tired and done with the Islamic Republic and they deeply hate the supreme leader of Iran,” Vakil admitted, but added: “There is a lot of concern about what comes next. There is no plan for what is called the next day. People agree that this is a very powerful regime and very willing to use coercion and violence for a long time in relation to Iran. secession, chaos, civil war, violence.”