Iranian and American negotiators meet in Rome on Friday for a fifth round of nuclear conversations, after a public disagreement about the enrichment of Tehran uranium.
The conversations, which began in April, are the highest level contact among the enemies since the United States resigned from the 2015 nuclear agreement during the first mandate of President Donald Trump.
Since he returned to office, Trump has revived his “maximum pressure” campaign in Iran, supporting conversations but warning about military action if diplomacy fails.
Iran wants a new agreement that relieves sanctions that have mistreated their economy.
The last round of conversations, in the capital Omar Muscat, ended with a public dispute over enrichment.
The American envoy Steve Witkoff said that Washington “could not authorize even the enrichment of one percent,” a position that Tehran called a red line, citing his rights under the non -proliferation treaty.
‘Fundamental differences’
Before Friday’s conversations, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that “fundamental differences” remained with the United States, while added that Tehran was open to their nuclear sites experiencing more inspections.
“We will not have an agreement at all if the United States wants to prevent them from enriching uranium,” Araghchi added.
Friday’s conversations in the Italian capital are ahead of a June meeting of the UN Nuclear Control Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (OIEA) based in Vienna and the October Expiration of the 2015 Agreement.
The agreement, known as the Joint Integral Action Plan, was aimed at preventing I will develop a nuclear bomb, an objective that Western countries accused him of pursuing, although Tehran denies it.
In exchange for curbs in its nuclear program, Iran had received relief from international sanctions. But the agreement was torpedored in 2018 when Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States.
Iran responded by increasing its nuclear activities.
It is now enriching the uranium at 60pc, well above the 3.67pc limit of the agreement, but below the 90 percent necessary for the weapon degree material.
‘It’s quite simple’
Tehran experts said it was unlikely that they will go back.
“It is quite simple; if the United States hopes will stop nuclear enrichment, then there cannot be an agreement,” said Mohammad Mara Andi, a political scientist who was once an advisor on the nuclear issue.
Iran’s atomic energy organization says that the country’s nuclear industry uses 17,000 people, similar to other countries where uranium is enriched for civil use.
“The Netherlands, Belgium, South Korea, Brazil and Japan enrich (uranium) without having nuclear weapons,” said his Behrouz Kamalvandi spokesman.
Iran’s enmity with Israel, whose main sponsor is the United States, has been a constant backdrop for conversations.
In a letter to the United Nations, Araghchi wrote: “We believe that in case of any attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Zionist regime, the United States government will also be involved and will assume legal responsibility.”
The warning came after CNNCiting unidentified American officials, he reported that Israel was making preparations to carry out such a strike.
The White House said Trump had a “productive discussion” with the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, about Iran and the fatal shooting of two employees of the Israeli embassy in Washington.
‘Irreversible’
Friday’s conversations will be held before a meeting of the Governors of the OIEA in June in Vienna during which Iran’s nuclear activities will be reviewed.
The 2015 agreement establishes the possibility that the UN sanctions are imposed again through a mechanism called “snapback” if Iran does not fulfill their commitments.
The three European signatories of the agreement, Great Britain, France and Germany, warned that they would trigger the mechanism if the security of the continent were threatened.
The main diplomat of Iran, Araghchi, said that such measure would have “consequences, not only the end of Europe’s role in the agreement, but also an escalation of tensions that could become irreversible.”
