Iran lacks clear fallback as nuclear talks with US falter

Iran’s leadership has no clear backup plan if nuclear negotiations with the United States collapse, according to three Iranian sources, as rising tensions over Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme threaten to derail diplomatic efforts.

With talks stalling over conflicting positions, Iranian officials indicated the country may turn to China and Russia as a “Plan B”, but acknowledged this strategy appears uncertain given Beijing’s trade disputes with Washington and Moscow’s focus on Ukraine.

“The plan B is to continue the strategy before the start of talks. Iran will avoid escalating tensions, it is ready to defend itself,” a senior Iranian official said. “The strategy also includes strengthening ties with allies like Russia and China.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Tuesday described US demands to halt uranium enrichment as “excessive and outrageous”, stating that the negotiations were unlikely to succeed.

The fifth round of talks aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief will take place in Rome on Friday, Oman’s foreign minister announced on Wednesday.

After four previous rounds, significant obstacles remain. Tehran refuses to ship its highly enriched uranium stockpile abroad or discuss its ballistic missile programme, according to two Iranian officials and a European diplomat.

The breakdown in trust stems partly from President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from a 2015 nuclear accord with world powers, which has increased Iran’s demands for guarantees that Washington will not abandon any future agreement.

Iran’s challenges have increased under Trump’s renewed “maximum pressure” campaign since February, which has tightened sanctions and included military threats. The country faces energy and water shortages, a declining currency, and concerns about potential Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities.

Demonstrations over social issues and economic difficulties in recent years have highlighted the Islamic Republic’s sensitivity to public discontent, leading to government crackdowns and Western human rights sanctions.

“Without lifting sanctions to enable free oil sales and access to funds, Iran’s economy cannot recover,” said a second Iranian official, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Even if uranium enrichment disputes are resolved, sanctions relief remains contentious. The US favours gradually phasing out nuclear-related sanctions, whilst Tehran demands immediate removal of all restrictions.

Dozens of Iranian institutions, including the central bank and national oil company, have been sanctioned since 2018 for allegedly supporting terrorism or weapons proliferation.

Wendy Sherman, the former US undersecretary for political affairs who led negotiations for the 2015 accord, said it was impossible to convince Tehran to “dismantle its nuclear programme and give up their enrichment even though that would be ideal”.

“So that means they will come to an impasse, and that we will face the potential for war, which I don’t think, quite frankly, President Trump looks forward to because he has campaigned as a peace president,” she said.

China, Iran’s primary oil buyer despite sanctions, has helped maintain economic stability, but Trump’s pressure on Chinese trade entities threatens these exports. Analysts note that Beijing’s support has limitations, as China seeks significant discounts for Iranian oil and may push for lower prices as global demand weakens.

France, Britain and Germany have warned they would reimpose UN sanctions if no deal emerges quickly. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement’s UN resolution, the three European nations have until October to trigger a “snapback mechanism” before the resolution expires.

According to diplomats and documents seen by Reuters, the European countries may act by August if no substantial progress is made.

Diplomats suggest that reaching any agreement before then would require, at best, an initial political framework similar to 2013, allowing both sides to offer immediate concessions whilst negotiating details.

“There is no reason to think it will take less time than the 18 months in 2013 especially when the parameters and the geopolitical situation is more complicated now,” a senior European official said.