This past weekend was the first time the momentum toward a US-Iran new nuclear deal was broken after three consecutive weeks of rounds of negotiations.
Omani mediators said it was a small technical issue, Iran said new negotiations would soon be announced, and Washington acted as if nothing had been scheduled or canceled without explaining why there needed to be a slowdown after US President Donald Trump had pushed to finish a deal at super speed.
All this leaves observers asking whether the negotiations are about to implode or whether this was a hiccup and adjustment on the way to a deal.
There are at least three potential reasons for the American delay.
First is the ousting of Mike Waltz from the powerful national security advisor role.
Whether Waltz was removed for reasons connected to the Iran nuclear issue is unclear.
His firing could have been due to his mistake in adding a journalist to a top-secret government chat group about US airstrikes on Yemen and his reported problems getting along with other top Trump aides. Alternatively, it could have been because Trump was annoyed that Waltz allegedly worked on the side with some Israeli officials on potential planning for an Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
We may never know the real reason, but if Waltz’s replacement is any sign about which way the wind is blowing in the Trump administration regarding Tehran at the moment, then it would be a reorientation toward a harder line, one closer to Israel’s position.
A second potential reason is that Waltz’s replacement is Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State and a hardcore hawk on Iran issues.
This was Trump’s decision despite rumors that his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who is more moderate on Tehran, might have been angling for the job.
So, Trump may have paused things just to sort through the aftermath of removing Waltz and installing Rubio with new powers.
If true, this could explain the US president’s interview over the weekend in which he seemed to harden his stance toward Iran from merely seeking to block it from getting a nuclear weapon to seeking to “dismantle” its nuclear weapons program.
This would also make sense with some increased criticism that Trump had started to hear within his own party for going too soft on Iran and for moving toward an “Obama 2.0” nuclear deal – criticism which may have really gotten under his skin as one of his signature first-term moves was to try to shred that deal.
A third factor could be visits from top Israeli officials.
Even earlier on in the talks, Mossad Director David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer had tried to convince Witkoff to take a tougher stance on Iran in the negotiations but felt that they left mostly empty-handed.
Following that, the Jerusalem Post has learned that Israel sent multiple top officials.
If these officials and the intelligence they presented made some progress with Trump, in conjunction with the other internal Republican criticism, this again could explain the latest delay and harder negotiating stance from the president.
But no one in Washington has said there is a crisis, and a fourth round of negotiations is expected in the near future.
So, what's holding up talks?
That suggests that, at most, the delay may have been a course correction and a negotiating tactic to be able to play hardball a bit more on one or more issues on the way to a nuclear deal.
Assuming Trump allows the Islamic Republic to continue to enrich uranium at low levels, maybe he will push to keep those restrictions longer than the 10 or so years under president Barack Obama’s nuclear deal.
If he allows Tehran to continue to manufacture ballistic missiles, maybe he will demand a provision regarding those missiles to have some impact on the issue.
He may push for US inspectors in more Iranian nuclear locations than the IAEA nuclear inspectors had access to.
There are also ongoing questions about how Iran’s advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium – which did not exist during Obama’s time – will be handled and how the issue of its sketchy prior nuclear history will be resolved, though Trump and his team have said little about this.
Fundamentally, though, Trump is against using force against any enemy who can do real harm to American and US interests, which Iran can.
This means that, as with his tariffs war, he will probably try to figure out some middle ground to claim some victories that Obama did not get, while still trying to seal a nuclear deal sooner than later – one that will likely fall short of the security guarantees Israel has demanded to refrain from its own strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
