Has Trump Moved On From Dismantling Iran's Nuclear Program?

High-stakes nuclear talks between the United States and Iran have already entered the technical phase after just two rounds of negotiations mediated by Oman.

A third round of talks, along with separate technical discussions, is scheduled for April 26 in Muscat.

The progress has fueled speculation, particularly in Iran, that the administration of US President Donald Trump has dropped its demand for the dismantlement of Tehran's nuclear program in favor of simply capping it.

But analysts caution that it's far too early to draw such conclusions.

While the shift to technical discussions might suggest a softening of US demands, analysts say dismantlement could still be the underlying objective -- or at least a point of leverage.

"I never thought that dismantlement was a credible goal," said Richard Nephew, who served as the lead sanctions expert on the US team that clinched the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

"But if this is still in the Trump administration's heads, then the long-term perspective is still bleak."

He noted that technical negotiations also took place during the talks that eventually led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), even when US demands remained maximalist.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), sees the current trajectory not as a concession but as strategic pressure.

"A Trump doctrine on Iran takes shape where it gives Iran a choice: Either you dismantle your nuclear program or the US and/or Israel will dismantle it for you," he said.

Is Iran Running Down The Clock?

Some, particularly proponents of dismantlement, argue that the Islamic republic is dragging out the negotiations to run down the clock on the return of UN sanctions.

Britain, France, and Germany have threatened to trigger the "snapback" mechanism of the JCPOA -- re-imposing UN sanctions against Tehran -- if it fails to reach a deal with the United States by the end of June. However, that mechanism expires in October.

Both analysts agree Iran sees value in prolonging the process to stall pressure, avoid snapback sanctions, or simply buy time.

"There is only a certain amount of pressure that comes to beat that clock, because even after snapback expires, you still have a hostile United States with its national sanctions campaign," Nephew said.

"Iran wants to clinch a decent deal, but they'll take wasted time -- and delayed military action -- as a consolation prize," he added.

Brodsky offered a sharper view, calling the negotiations "a shield" that Tehran uses to protect its nuclear work from further scrutiny or action.

"Iran only loses should the negotiations collapse," he said. "The United States, however, does not need the talks as much as Iran does."

What Would A Good Iran Deal Look Like?

Despite skepticism over whether dismantlement is still a realistic demand, analysts agree a deal that limits Iran's nuclear activities can still be credible, if it includes key safeguards.

"The JCPOA gives us a lot of advice here," said Nephew. "You'd need three things: verification of the cap, physical limitations so that they can't quickly exceed it, and a credible risk of consequences if they cheat."

He noted that while Iran is unlikely to scrap its advanced centrifuges again, as it did under the 2015 deal, "there is still space that a deal could be found."

Brodsky, however, is doubtful that any deal short of full dismantlement can truly prevent Iran from using its nuclear program as leverage.

He views even low-level enrichment -- such as the 3.67 percent limit under the JCPOA -- as a threat.

"Its right to enrich uranium to 3.67 percent under the JCPOA was part of [an] extortion racket," he said, referring to Iran teasing nuclear weapons acquisition.

"The continuation of this negotiation process leads some observers to believe the United States has conceded a right to enrich uranium to Iran," Brodsky said. "I believe the Trump administration is still defining the contours of what an acceptable deal would look like."