Nuclear bargaining: what Iran is ready to exchange for US guarantees

Iran and the United States met in Geneva to discuss the future of the nuclear deal and the sanctions regime. The day before, Donald Trump warned that the refusal of dialogue could turn into a violent scenario — an American military group is already stationed off the Iranian coast. In these circumstances, Tehran decided to adjust its tactics: instead of harsh rhetoric, the Iranian delegation brought a package of economic proposals to Switzerland. Details can be found in the Izvestia article.

A new twist

The Iranian delegation to the Geneva talks was led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. The American side was represented by the president's special envoy Stephen Witkoff and the American leader's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

"The negotiations are very serious, and we have started discussing details on both issues: lifting sanctions and nuclear issues," said Ismail Bagai, an official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic.

Earlier, in early February, the parties had already met in the same format in Muscat. The dialogue continues to be conducted indirectly: the delegations are in different rooms and exchange positions through an intermediary, Oman's Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi.

In case of failure of negotiations, the United States is ready to increase pressure on Iran. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that failure to conclude a deal could lead to a military escalation. On the eve of the meeting in Switzerland, he noted: "I don't think they want the consequences of not concluding an agreement. They want to make a deal."

At the same time, the head of the White House stressed that he would participate in the process indirectly and called the negotiations "very important," adding that it was "traditionally difficult to have a dialogue with Iran."

Despite the contacts, the positions of the parties remain far from rapprochement. The United States has put forward a package of fundamental conditions: to completely stop uranium enrichment, limit the ballistic missile program, recognize Israel and stop financing groups in the region. In response, Tehran says it is ready to discuss exclusively the nuclear program and the issue of lifting sanctions.

At the same time, the current round may turn out to be more meaningful. According to media reports, the Iranian side offered the economic component of the deal — access to natural resources in exchange for guarantees of non-aggression. We are talking about oil, gas and rare earth metals. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Development, Hamid Ghanbari, bluntly stated that the agreement should be of material interest to the Americans.

"To ensure the strength of the agreement, it is essential that the United States benefits in areas with high and rapid economic returns." — he explained.

A separate issue is Israel's reaction. Any potential agreement is likely to rule out the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, there remains uncertainty around the peaceful part of the program.: will Tehran retain the right to enrich uranium, operate nuclear power plants and develop scientific fields? In West Jerusalem, even such restrictions may be considered insufficient.

Oil in exchange for guarantees

The fate of the nuclear deal with Iran largely depends on the position of the United States, Natalia Eremina, a political scientist and professor at St. Petersburg State University, said in an interview with Izvestia. According to her, Tehran has repeatedly faced geopolitical "swings": Washington's course has changed — new sanctions have been imposed or, on the contrary, opportunities have appeared for partial normalization of the situation.

— Today, for Washington, it is also a matter of leadership in the nuclear field. The United States seeks to secure the right to determine who can possess nuclear weapons and who cannot. Thus, the negotiation process largely works to strengthen the American role in the global nuclear agenda," the expert points out.

In turn, Iran is not interested in escalation, the analyst continues. In his opinion, Tehran's current capabilities do not allow for an open confrontation. Tehran is gradually building its own security architecture and developing cooperation with China and Russia, but the situation is still unstable.

If the United States agrees to the deal and gets the rights to develop Iranian oil and rare earth metals, it will be a double-edged sword for Tehran. The advantage is obvious — the lifting of the oil embargo and access to technology. However, the risks are significant, Igor Rastorguev, a leading analyst at AMarkets, explains in a conversation with Izvestia.

— Firstly, it means a partial loss of control over the subsoil, a key national wealth. Secondly, any agreement should provide for the return of frozen assets in a real and usable form. Agreeing to an American presence in the resource base automatically puts Tehran in the position of a junior partner and limits its ability to pursue an independent foreign policy, which it has been building for decades, the expert believes.

According to him, the prospects for the deal remain uncertain. The Iranian side has already stated that the refusal of uranium enrichment is not discussed — this is a "red line". At the same time, Tehran is ready to talk about investments in the oil and gas sector and even the purchase of American aircraft. Washington, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted, does not have a clear understanding of who can come to power in the event of a regime change. This highlights the uncertainty of the American position and the lack of a clear plan in case of a radical scenario.

"It's more about trying to achieve favorable commercial terms," Rastorguev notes. — It is important to take into account the general background: the International Energy Agency predicts an oil surplus of 3.7 million barrels per day by the end of 2026. That is, even without Iranian oil, the market is already overstocked. In such circumstances, the stakes in Geneva are much higher for Iran than for America: for them it is a question of the survival of the current economic model, and for the United States it is only a question of the price of gasoline for domestic consumers.