European diplomats who previously handled negotiations with Tehran are voicing alarm that a push by a relatively inexperienced U.S. delegation for a rapid framework accord with Iran could produce a shallow, headline-focused package that leaves the most complex issues unresolved.
Those diplomats say Washington appears keen to secure a diplomatic achievement for the U.S. president, even if the resulting framework lacks the technical depth needed to make it durable. Their fear is that a short, politically attractive agreement on core trade-offs - curbs on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief - would be followed by months or years of technically intricate bargaining over the details, during which the initial deal could founder.
"The concern isn’t that there won’t be an agreement," said a senior European diplomat who previously worked on the nuclear dossier. "It’s that there will be a bad initial agreement that creates endless downstream problems." Eight diplomats who have been involved in the file or remain engaged expressed similar unease.
In response to questions covering negotiating style, team composition, objectives, and the hazards of an accelerated timetable, the White House rejected such criticism. "President Trump has a proven track record of achieving good deals on behalf of the United States and the American people, and he will only accept one that puts America first," spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.
Historical context of the negotiating teams
Diplomats from France, Britain and Germany, who have been negotiating with Iran since 2003 and who jointly negotiated with the United States from 2013 to 2015, say they have been pushed to the margins of the current process. Those three European powers helped secure the 2015 accord that limited Iran’s nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - which U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned in 2018, calling it "horribly one-sided."
Following an episode of 40 days of airstrikes, U.S. and Iranian delegations resumed contact and opened talks in Islamabad earlier in the month, again centring on a familiar trade-off: nuclear restraints in return for economic incentives. Observers in Pakistan noted signs that face-to-face negotiations might resume.
Negotiating cultures and the danger of haste
Diplomats say deep mistrust between the parties and sharply contrasting negotiating cultures increase the risk that a fragile framework could be politically unsustainable. Federica Mogherini, who coordinated the multilateral talks between 2013 and 2015, emphasised the heavy technical lift behind past accords. "It took us 12 years and immense technical work," she said. "Does anyone seriously think this can be done in 21 hours?"
Officials involved in the present discussions say a high-level outline may be achievable, built around two key pillars: a nuclear package and an economic package. But they underscore that the nuclear dimension remains the most contested and technically complex element.
"The Americans think you agree on three or four points in a five-page document and that’s it, but on the nuclear file, every clause opens the door to a dozen more disputes," a second European diplomat said.
Stockpiles, verification and the options under consideration
Talks are concentrating on Iran’s roughly 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, material that, if further enriched, could be used for several nuclear weapons. One often-discussed option is "downblending" that material inside Iran under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Another possibility is a hybrid approach that would ship some material abroad; Turkey and France have been mentioned as potential destinations.
Diplomats caution that shipping material overseas raises politically and technically sensitive questions. Sending materials to the United States would be a difficult political step for Iran, while Russia is unattractive to Washington, according to two diplomats. Even moving material to third countries would require lengthy negotiations over issues such as locating and recovering material that could have been buried following airstrikes, verifying quantities, and ensuring secure transport.
Iran has also proposed storing material abroad for a fixed period. "Whatever happens now is only a starting point," said a Western diplomat who previously took part in nuclear talks. He noted that the 2015 accord ran to 160 pages, underlining the level of technical detail involved in reaching a sustainable outcome.
Enrichment rights and possible compromises
Beyond handling existing stockpiles, the more fundamental disagreement concerns Iran’s right to enrich uranium at all. President Trump has publicly advocated for eliminating enrichment, while Iran maintains it has a right to enrich for civilian purposes and denies seeking a nuclear weapon. One compromise under discussion would be a temporary moratorium on enrichment, followed by a resumption at very low levels under strict conditions.
European diplomats stressed that the International Atomic Energy Agency must play a central role, with intrusive verification measures and unrestricted access. Gérard Araud, who led French negotiations from 2006 to 2009, warned that negotiations with Iran are meticulous and subtle, and that rushing them is not prudent. "A negotiation with Iran is meticulous and subtle: every word matters," he said.
Sanctions relief, frozen assets and sequencing
The economic track of talks focuses on the unfreezing of Iranian assets and the staged lifting of sanctions. In the near term, Iran is seeking access to limited funds frozen overseas. Longer-term, broader sanctions relief would require the buy-in of European states, which Iranian leaders consider important for sustained trade and economic ties.
Officials say Washington appears to be separating an agreement in principle from the laborious follow-up work. Some diplomats warn this approach risks misunderstanding Iranian political mechanisms and the importance Iran places on sequencing measures. A senior regional diplomat, briefed by Tehran, likened the process to a complex series of steps rather than a simple handshake deal - noting that key U.S. negotiators include figures with backgrounds in real estate and private-sector dealmaking.
The recent war has hardened Iranian positions, according to the diplomats, demonstrating Iran’s capacity to absorb external pressure while continuing to press for financial relief. Tehran’s top demand is a non-aggression guarantee, reflecting experience of being attacked by the U.S. and Israel during prior diplomatic efforts.
Regional security concerns and competing priorities
The concern over a rushed or shallow agreement is shared by U.S. allies. Gulf states want Iranian ballistic missile activities and proxy networks addressed, while Israel seeks maximal constraints. Iran, for its part, views retaining missile capability as a necessary deterrent in light of war-related degradation of its forces. Diplomats note that demanding total abandonment of such capabilities would be unrealistic without broader security guarantees.
A senior official from the Trump administration spelled out Washington’s redlines as including ending uranium enrichment, dismantling major enrichment facilities, recovering highly enriched uranium, and accepting a broader de-escalation framework that would involve regional partners.
Europe’s role and current standing
European officials acknowledge that they partly sidelined themselves by pushing last year for the reimposition of U.N. sanctions and by designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation. Nonetheless, they say their decision to step back from the conflict has been noticed in Tehran.
One European official pointed to the disparity in institutional memory on the file, noting that roughly 200 diplomats, financial specialists and nuclear experts were involved in the 2015 negotiations. "There’s simply not enough expertise in this U.S. team," he said, adding that European governments have worked on the Iran dossier for two decades.
Responding to concerns about the composition of the U.S. delegation, a White House official said representatives from the National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department were present in Islamabad and remained actively involved.
Where this leaves the process
Diplomats involved in or familiar with the negotiations caution that a high-level framework, if it lacks technical clarity, could create protracted disputes requiring detailed resolution. They stress that an initial political understanding must be followed by painstaking, technical implementation steps - a process that historically has proved time-consuming and complex.
For now, the parties appear to be negotiating familiar trade-offs under intense political pressure and divergent expectations. Whether the current trajectory leads to a durable outcome or to a politically appealing but technically fragile framework remains a key uncertainty.