Negotiations between the United States and Iran to resolve nuclear disputes and related issues such as sanctions relief and freedom of passage in the Strait of Hormuz are expected to face significant challenges, according to insights drawn from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) experience. The current talks, set to last 60 days, are widely regarded as insufficient given the complexity of the matters at hand.

The original JCPOA negotiations spanned 20 months, involving intricate technical discussions and multiple contentious issues beyond uranium enrichment limits and stockpile disposal. Among these were the conditions under which International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors could access Iranian military sites, with debates over how much notice would have to be given. These questions are anticipated to require renewed and detailed negotiations in the current round.

Domestic political considerations will further complicate progress. In 2015, both the U.S. and Iranian delegations initially adopted rigid stances—such as the U.S. demanding zero enrichment and Iran refusing to reduce centrifuge numbers—that only eased after extensive testing of these positions. Presently, Tehran’s political climate is more constrained, featuring a stronger influence of security forces particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), whose leadership often views negotiations as a form of conflict continuation, anticipating eventual hostilities.

Iran’s strategic calculation also weighs heavily on the talks. The previous JCPOA stipulated upfront Iranian concessions, including the dismantling of key nuclear facilities, in exchange for sanctions relief. However, Iran maintains that the promised economic benefits were not fully realized, citing reluctance from international companies to reengage amid uncertainty over U.S. policy shifts. Consequently, Iran now seeks reciprocal and immediate guarantees to ensure sanctions relief measures are enforceable, durable, and resistant to future unilateral reversals by Washington.

The recent memorandum electronically signed by both countries on June 17 is viewed as imprecise, risking divergent interpretations and mutual accusations of bad faith. Such distrust, exacerbated by prior breakdowns in negotiations sometimes followed by military strikes, underscores the volatility surrounding the talks.

Beyond the bilateral dynamic, the negotiations have grown more complex due to the involvement of additional regional actors. Iran’s emphasis on its control over the Strait of Hormuz as part of a broader regional deterrence strategy intersects with the interests of Gulf nations and others. Confidence in the U.S. as a security guarantor has diminished among regional states, while Israel remains openly critical of any agreement it deems harmful, potentially seeking to obstruct progress. Iran is reportedly pursuing regional arrangements to strengthen its deterrence against potential Israeli attacks.

Despite the heightened tensions and difficulties, the memorandum’s signing indicates a mutual reluctance from both Iran and the U.S. to revert to full-scale conflict. Observers suggest that a protracted negotiation process, marked by repeated deadline extensions and intermittent tensions, may be preferable to renewed hostilities, allowing for measured engagement amid ongoing geopolitical challenges.