News Iran Nuclear Talks, JCPOA, Middle East Security, Nuclear Diplomacy, U.S. Foreign Policy peace April 21, 2025 0 Comments

Breakthrough or Breakdown? What’s at Stake in Iran Nuclear Talks

As new diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran begin to unfold in Oman, there’s growing hope — and considerable risk — on the table. While Tehran’s nuclear program is significantly more advanced today than it was during the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations in 2015, many of the core lessons from that time remain more relevant than ever.

At Peace Economy Project, we advocate for diplomacy over militarism and strongly support efforts that prevent war through verification, coalition-building, and responsible negotiations. The following five lessons, adapted from a detailed piece by nuclear policy expert Corey Hinderstein, offer critical guidance for the current round of talks — and why they matter for peace.

1. Monitoring and Verification Are Essential

You can’t disarm what you can’t see. Iran’s nuclear program has grown — in material, equipment, and expertise — since the U.S. pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018. While it’s impossible to “unlearn” technical knowledge, it is still possible to build a robust monitoring and verification regime that can provide early warning of any weapons-related activity.

Without this early warning, diplomacy loses its power, and the drumbeat of war grows louder. This is why the International Atomic Energy Agency’s role must be protected and strengthened — not defunded.

2. Knowledge Is Power — So Use It

Diplomacy requires deep technical understanding. Negotiators must go beyond political soundbites and rely on scientists, engineers, and nonproliferation experts to assess what Iran is truly capable of — and how to create space between peaceful nuclear activity and weapons development.

The U.S. has invested in this kind of expertise for decades. Those experts need to be at the table, not sidelined by short-term political agendas or anti-Iran rhetoric. The strength of any future agreement depends on the science behind it.

3. We Are Stronger With Allies

The 2015 JCPOA wasn’t just a U.S. effort — it was a coalition of the U.S., Europe, Russia, and China. That collective force helped bring Iran to the table and ensured compliance once the deal was struck. With the U.S. now less trusted on the world stage after unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, rebuilding international partnerships is critical.

Regional stability doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Diplomacy, especially on issues this sensitive, demands a united front and global cooperation.

4. All or Nothing Is a Losing Strategy

Demanding perfection is a sure way to walk away with nothing. The 2015 process showed that phased agreements, interim steps, and technical placeholders allow trust to build and progress to be made — even if not every detail is resolved on day one.

Insisting on “complete dismantlement or no deal” is not only unrealistic — it invites collapse. A smart, peace-first policy accepts complexity and plans for long-term dialogue.

5. Everyone Has to “Win”

No deal works unless both sides can claim success. That doesn’t mean compromising core values — it means understanding the motivations of each actor and designing agreements that de-escalate tensions while meeting key strategic goals.

For the U.S., a win is avoiding another war in the Middle East and preventing nuclear proliferation. For Iran, a win might be relief from sanctions and recognition of their civilian nuclear rights. If diplomacy is about peace, it must be built on mutual benefit — not humiliation.

Why This Matters Now

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a disaster for the region and the world — but so would another endless war. The choice we face is not between appeasement and aggression, but between diplomacy and destruction.

At Peace Economy Project, we believe the U.S. must learn from past mistakes and embrace pragmatic, verifiable diplomacy over military escalation. These negotiations may be difficult, but the alternative — a nuclear crisis fueled by fear and nationalism — is unacceptable.