Iranian Political Analyst: We’re Not at the End of This Road Yet
Enrichment levels, military threats, and regional diplomacy weigh heavily as Washington and Tehran attempt to revive the 2015 deal
By Giorgia Valente/The Media Line
As Iran and the United States prepare to reconvene in Rome for a new round of nuclear negotiations, the atmosphere surrounding the talks remains tense, fragmented, and increasingly fragile. Despite a flicker of diplomatic resolve, the path back to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) appears narrower than ever—hemmed in by political red lines, military threats, and a shifting regional order.
Uranium enrichment continues inside Iran, now reaching 60% purity—well above JCPOA thresholds and approaching the 90% required for weaponization. The latest intelligence assessments indicate that Iran possesses enough enriched uranium for at least three nuclear bombs if it were to cross the threshold.
“Enrichment will continue. Our right to peaceful nuclear energy is not negotiable,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this week.
The White House responded swiftly. Special envoy Steve Witkoff said, “Iran must stop all enrichment activities—immediately and completely. There is no peaceful reason to enrich uranium at this scale.” President Donald Trump reinforced that warning, stating that Iran “has weeks, not months” to return to compliance or face “serious consequences.”
Despite the sharp rhetoric, negotiations continue. “Negotiations are still ongoing,” Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told The Media Line. “There’s going to be another round tomorrow. The US is trying to convince Iran to step back on enrichment. This is what separates a viable agreement from disaster.”
Although the sides remain far apart, both remain at the table—an indication that mutual interests persist. For Tehran, sanctions relief is essential to halting economic decline. For Washington, rolling back Iran’s nuclear advances is critical to regional stability.
However, the two capitals remain divided on the deal’s structure, particularly on enrichment rights and long-term inspections.
Nima Baheli, an Iranian political analyst, views the impasse through a broader lens. “We’re not at the end of this road yet,” he told The Media Line. “What we’ve seen from Washington—statements that shift week to week—suggests that the Americans may be using these tough positions tactically, not strategically. They may want to pressure Iran, but also broaden the scope of the deal to involve other regional players.”
Baheli said the portrayal of Iran as inflexible misses deeper diplomatic realities. “Tehran is not simply saying no. It’s saying: don’t ask us to give up what international law allows. The red line is the right to enrich under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s not just national pride—it’s legal grounding.”
“The moment you accept a deal that strips that right, you’re no longer a sovereign negotiating party—you’re a capitulating one,” he added.
Baheli also highlighted a little-noticed but emerging development: a potential framework for cooperation between Iran and Gulf Arab states on nuclear fuel management. “There have been quiet discussions about creating an Iranian-Arab consortium on uranium storage and even enrichment oversight. This would have been unthinkable in 2015. But now, the region is shifting. Qatar, the Emirates, and even Saudi Arabia are not necessarily opposed to a controlled Iranian program—especially if it brings stability.”
Israeli officials, however, reject the idea of a broader regional deal and warn that time is running out.
A recent report from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies states that Iran operates more than 12 nuclear facilities, including major sites at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and Arak. The report details the construction of a new underground facility near Natanz, buried beneath mountains and likely beyond the reach of conventional Israeli munitions.
The report emphasizes the depth and dispersion of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, noting extensive fortification efforts, particularly at Natanz. These developments, it says, complicate military planning and raise concerns about Iran’s potential to achieve a nuclear breakout capability.
“The problem is not only what Iran has now,” Kuperwasser said. “It’s what it’s building for tomorrow. We cannot allow Iran to reach a point where it can build a bomb in secret or in a matter of days. That’s why the enrichment must stop—completely.”
Kuperwasser stressed that diplomacy alone is not enough. “We support a diplomatic solution—but only if it’s a good one. If the deal doesn’t eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, then it’s a bad deal. Period. And we must be prepared to act in case the talks fail.”
He cautioned against complacency. “Even if an agreement on principles is reached, turning that into an actual plan will take time. Iran knows this, and they’re playing the clock. That’s why the Americans are now stressing that time is a factor. They want Iran to feel the pressure.”
CNN recently reported that, according to US intelligence, Israel may be preparing for a potential strike on Iranian nuclear sites, possibly without American coordination. Tehran responded with warnings of “severe retaliation,” and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that “all options are on the table” to defend Iran’s facilities.
Baheli questioned whether Israel would act alone. “It’s hard to see how they could carry out a decisive strike without American support. They don’t have the deep-penetrating bunker-busters, the number of aerial tankers needed, or the cover for an extended operation. I think these statements are more about shaping the diplomatic environment than launching an actual war.”
He also warned that even a limited Israeli strike could backfire. “A unilateral Israeli attack would most likely radicalize Iran’s position. It wouldn’t end the program—it would accelerate it, and it would empower the very voices within Iran that see diplomacy as a trap. In that case, no one wins.”
Kuperwasser acknowledged these constraints but insisted that Israel’s capabilities should not be underestimated. “We have shown in the past—most recently in October—that we can reach targets inside Iran, including those tied to the nuclear program. We destroyed key air defense systems. Iran cannot rely on its air defenses. Its deterrence is missiles, not protection.”
He also stressed that Israel is not acting alone. “There’s a lot of noise in the media, but the reality is we’re coordinated with the United States. We’re not trying to sabotage diplomacy. But we also won’t accept a cosmetic agreement that leaves Iran closer to the bomb.”
The talks in Rome may not yield a breakthrough, but they could represent a turning point. Kuperwasser said urgency must drive decision-making. “Time is not on our side. Even if we reach a framework, implementing it will take months. Iran knows this. They are stalling.”
Baheli agreed. “There are deep technical and legal questions still unresolved. But both sides have an interest in finding a way out. The Americans want to stabilize the region. The Iranians want sanctions relief. That shared interest is why talks are still happening.”
Brought to you by www.srnnews.com
