The failure of the United States to uphold its own commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal—most notably the unilateral withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 by Donald Trump in his first term as president, has had far-reaching consequences. It not only undermined the deal itself but also eroded the trust necessary for any future agreement to be meaningful or sustainable.
If a new nuclear deal is to be reached, Iran’s expectations must be addressed not as secondary conditions, but as core components of the agreement. At the heart of Iran’s position lies one non-negotiable demand: an effective, verifiable, and irreversible lifting of sanctions. Without this, there can be no genuine agreement.
Sanctions relief: The core of Iran’s demands
Iran’s nuclear program has always been linked to the question of sanctions, arguably more than to the technical aspects of the program itself. For Iran, the JCPOA was not just a nuclear accord; it was an economic opening. The country agreed to limit its nuclear capabilities in exchange for relief from crippling U.S. and international sanctions. But that relief never fully materialized, even before the Trump administration’s withdrawal.
One key lesson Iran has drawn from the JCPOA experience is that vague promises of sanctions relief are insufficient. Iranian banks and businesses continued to face serious obstacles due to the enduring presence of U.S. secondary sanctions. Worse still, the Trump administration’s decision to walk away from the deal demonstrated how easily such commitments could be reversed at virtually no cost.
This time around, Iran is demanding more than paper guarantees.
According to Majid Shakeri, an Iranian economic expert, the current discussions overwhelmingly focus on what the United States expects—namely the limitation of Iran’s nuclear program—while completely neglecting what Iran should gain in return.
“There’s been plenty of debate around how a relatively stable or logical arrangement between Iran and the U.S. might look. But almost all of it focuses on the American side’s expected gains, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear activities under various names like temporary suspension or international consortia,” Shakeri tells the Tehran Times. “Yet nothing is said about what Iran should gain.”
He argues that simply avoiding military conflict is not a sufficient gain for Iran. “If Washington really wanted to use military campaigns to curtail Iran’s program, it wouldn’t wait a second,” the economic expert asserted. “So, common sense dictates that a sustainable agreement must include measurable economic returns for Iran.”
From sanctions relief to tangible economic benefit
Shakeri contends that Iran must shift the focus from mere “sanctions relief” to economic benefit—or as he calls it, “measurable profit.” He explains:
“Sanctions are just one of many tools used to pressure Iran. The U.S. also employs tariffs, patent controls, and financial risk ratings, none of which fall under the usual sanctions framework. So, focusing solely on ‘sanctions relief’ is misguided.”
Instead, he says, the Iranian negotiating team must demand quantifiable economic returns in exchange for the U.S.'s quantifiable nuclear demands. “If the Americans want verifiable limits with oversight by the IAEA and even direct U.S.-linked monitors, then Iran should seek verifiable economic benefits overseen by its own institutions like the Central Bank and Ministry of Economy.”
Shakeri believes a strategic pivot can benefit both sides. “Rather than exchanging strengths, Iran and the U.S. can engage in deals that compensate for each other’s weaknesses.”
He notes that Iran needs capital goods for industrial growth, while the U.S., especially under a second Trump administration, will be seeking ways to maintain its energy dominance amid pressure from OPEC+ and increasing Russian and Saudi output.
“These complementary needs offer fertile ground for win-win solutions that don’t necessarily involve political concessions or diplomatic humiliation,” he comments.
The expert also emphasizes that any durable arrangement must avoid linkage to regional countries and instead be direct, mutual, and centered on the parties' core needs.
Enrichment, independence, and the path forward
During a visit to Imam Khomeini’s mausoleum on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reaffirmed that Iran’s right to enrich uranium stems from a foundational principle: resistance to foreign domination.
“There is much to say about enrichment as one of the country’s necessities, but more fundamentally, our guiding principle in these negotiations is rejecting domination,” he said.
After the fifth round of indirect U.S.-Iran talks in Rome, Araghchi called the session “one of the most professional rounds we have ever had,” and affirmed that Iran’s “completely clear” positions were firmly conveyed.
Separately, nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami reiterated that Iran’s nuclear trajectory is driven by national interests, not foreign dictates.
For Iran, any nuclear deal must be more than a diplomatic gesture—it must function as a binding economic agreement that delivers measurable and protected benefits. Iranian officials are united in their view that the nuclear program cannot be used as a bargaining chip without guaranteed, tangible gains.
And those gains must be insulated from the political whims of future U.S. administrations.
The road to a sustainable agreement runs not only through centrifuge halls and inspection checklists, but also through ports, banks, and economic frameworks. Only when both sides are bound—and benefited—can a nuclear agreement be truly viable.
Source: Tehran Times
