This summary is generated by artificial intelligence and reviewed by the editorial team.
The United States proposal for Iran freeze its uranium enrichment program for 20 years was the main reason for failure of negotiation Pakistan. This is because today it is known that Tehran considered the deadline unacceptable and raised a alternative of just five yearswhich is rejected by Washington and Israel.
Now the central objective of the United States is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in the medium term.
According to The Wall Street Jornal, in exchange for acceptance, the United States proposal contemplates the lifting of international sanctions against Iran.
For its part, Iran has offered a much shorter suspension: five years. It considers that 20 years is excessive and politically unacceptable and a way to limit its sovereign right to nuclear energy.
At this point, it should be noted that Iran has always stated that its nuclear program only has civil purposes, although 60% enrichment contradicts that position.
According to The New York Times, in the negotiations in Pakistan, Iran insisted on keeping its highly enriched uranium reserves within its territory. But he offered as an alternative to significantly reduce its level of enrichment to prevent its immediate use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Axios indicated that the Iranians believed they were close to an initial agreement on Sunday morning, but the press conference of the US Vice President and negotiator JD Vance took them by surprise, as in his speech he blamed Tehran for the failure of the negotiation and announced that the US delegation was leaving Islamabad.
“Iranians were furious about that press conference”a well-informed source told Axios.
After the failure of the negotiation, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchí, stated that the parties were “centimeters away” from an agreement, but accused the United States of having maintained an inflexible and unconcessional position.
“When we were about to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with Islamabad, we ran into maximalism, changing objectives and blocking. Zero lessons learned. Goodwill begets goodwill. Enmity begets enmity,” the Iranian foreign minister wrote in X.
While Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on Monday that Vance told him in a phone call that the main obstacle was removing all enriched material from Iran and ensuring that no enrichment occurs. “in the next few years, and that could be decades from now.”
“20 years is not a negotiation, it is a red line”
International analyst Roberto Heimovits maintains that the United States proposal to freeze uranium enrichment for 20 years should not be read as a simple negotiation offer, but as a firm condition.
“The 20 years is a demand that the United States has raised as a red line, not as an initial negotiating position”he tells El Comercio.
As he explains, the precedent of the 2015 nuclear agreement during Barack Obama’s government—which established long-term restrictions—reinforces Washington’s logic. In this context, a pause of just five years, as Iran proposes, is insufficient. “Five years would practically be nothing,” points out.
Heimovits adds a key element to understand why the United States, Israel and the Gulf countries reject an Iran with nuclear weapons: control of strategic points such as the Strait of Hormuz.
As he explains, the concern is not limited to nuclear development itself, but rather how it could amplify Tehran’s regional behavior.
“If, even without having nuclear weapons, Iran is capable of proposing something as radical as trying to control or annex the Strait of Hormuz, which is an area of global strategic importance, what would it not be able to do if it had a nuclear weapon?” warns.
In that sense, Heimovits points out that the fear is that Iran will not only strengthen its deterrent power, but also advance towards a dominant position in the region.
“It could become a regional hegemon or even go further,” he claims.
Iran, North Korea and the logic of nuclear deterrence
Regarding the Iranian counterproposal, Heimovits warns that there are two possible interpretations: a real willingness to negotiate or a strategy to buy time and preserve its nuclear capacity.
“Either option is possible. It depends on how much damage Iran has suffered and whether it is in a position to continue the war,” explains.
He notes that for Tehran, maintaining its nuclear program is key, not only as a technological tool, but as a guarantee of security.
“As has been seen in the case of North Korea, having nuclear weapons practically makes a State invulnerable.””, he claims.
However, the analyst introduces a central nuance: above the nuclear program is the survival of the regime.
“If they feel they are strong, they will insist on maintaining their capacity. But if they perceive that their survival is at risk, they might accept longer terms,” remark.
Did the war give Iran reasons not to give up having the atomic bomb? Heimovits proposes a contrasting reading of this argument.
“If Iran did not have a nuclear program, it is unlikely that it would have been attacked by the United States or Israel,” states.
From their perspective, Iranian nuclear development has not increased its security, but rather has generated the opposite effect: “Paradoxically, instead of giving him more security, it increased his insecurity.”
“If there is no agreement, the war will continue”
The analyst warns that the lack of agreement could have immediate consequences. “If Iran does not agree to freeze its program in the long term and does not hand over its enriched uranium, the United States will continue with the blockade and the war will probably resume in the short term.”.
In this scenario, Israel’s role is decisive. Heimovits reminds that, from the Israeli perspective, a nuclear-capable Iran represents an existential threat.
“If an agreement is not reached to freeze the Iranian nuclear program, the war will most likely continue”insists.
https://andersonrecords.us/property-records
https://andersonrecords.us/warrant-search
https://apacherecords.us/
https://apacherecords.us/arrest-records
https://apacherecords.us/court-records
https://apacherecords.us/criminal-records
https://apacherecords.us/divorce-records
https://apacherecords.us/inmate-search
https://apacherecords.us/property-records
https://apacherecords.us/warrant-search
https://armstrongrecords.us/
https://armstrongrecords.us/arrest-records
https://armstrongrecords.us/court-records
https://armstrongrecords.us/criminal-records
https://armstrongrecords.us/divorce-records
https://armstrongrecords.us/inmate-search
https://armstrongrecords.us/property-records
https://armstrongrecords.us/warrant-search
https://aroostookrecords.us/
https://aroostookrecords.us/arrest-records
https://aroostookrecords.us/court-records
https://aroostookrecords.us/criminal-records
https://aroostookrecords.us/divorce-records
https://aroostookrecords.us/inmate-search
https://aroostookrecords.us/property-records