Diplomatic teams from Washington and Tehran are due to meet in Switzerland following a four-month war, but they face a complex set of obstacles that could prevent a final, comprehensive settlement within the 60-day timeframe outlined in a recently approved memorandum of understanding. The interim agreement effectively pushed the most difficult questions to a later phase - questions that have the potential to unravel the process.
This analysis outlines the main areas of friction that could stall or scuttle a final U.S.-Iran deal, keeping in mind the constrained timeline and the political pressures on both sides.
Nuclear issues - the central fault line
At the core of the negotiations is the fate of Iran's nuclear program, the issue cited by the U.S. president as the principal cause of the war. While U.S. officials have pointed to Iran's stated commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, that assertion largely restates existing Iranian pledges. The talks are more likely to be undermined by disputes over tangible nuclear measures - notably what should happen to Iran's stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.
Washington has publicly pushed for that material to be removed from Iran or destroyed. Tehran has rejected both options, although it has signaled potential openness to diluting the uranium. Another persistent point of contention is the future of enrichment activities inside Iran. The U.S. has at times sought commitments to halt enrichment entirely. Iran, by contrast, has insisted it will retain the right to enrich.
Sources familiar with prior discussions say positions on a moratorium have ranged broadly - from roughly five years up to twenty years - but no durable compromise has emerged. Further complicating the nuclear dossier is the question of inspections; Iran may not accept the extent of international monitoring that was part of a previous, long-standing nuclear pact that a former U.S. administration backed and a later one withdrew from.
Maritime control and the Strait of Hormuz
Another potential flashpoint is the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint that normally transits about one-fifth of global oil flows. Iran effectively closed the waterway after an attack on February 28, which precipitated an energy supply shock. Under the memorandum of understanding the strait is due to be reopened, and the U.S. has said it would be toll-free for shipping.
Despite that commitment, shippers remain cautious, and Tehran has insisted it will retain some management role in the channel - a posture that reflects the leverage it acquired during the conflict. How responsibilities for navigation, security and oversight are defined and implemented will be a sensitive and potentially destabilizing subject during the next negotiation phase.
Sanctions, frozen funds and sequencing of relief
Financial relief and sanctions relief are likely to be another major sticking point. Iran wants rapid lifting of sanctions and immediate access to billions in frozen assets. U.S. officials, by contrast, intend to make easing sanctions a gradual process, closely tied to Iranian compliance with agreed measures.
The memorandum reads that Iran would immediately receive waivers to resume oil sales, a concession that has drawn criticism from hawks who argue it concedes too much up front. At the same time, the U.S. president may be politically constrained from appearing to transfer large sums to Iran quickly, and the agreement has already drawn comparisons to a prior deal that involved financial returns, which has been a point of domestic political contention.
Regional spoilers - Israel and Lebanon
Regional actors could also complicate the process. Israel's prime minister, who played a role in persuading the U.S. to commence military action, has stated that his country would not consider itself bound by any U.S.-Iran agreement in its operational efforts against Iran-aligned Hezbollah in Lebanon. Although hostilities in Lebanon have eased since the U.S. president publicly admonished Israel, renewed escalation there could threaten broader negotiations.
Tehran, for its part, has said the deal requires a ceasefire in Lebanon as well. Divergent interpretations of security commitments in that theater present another risk to the fragile diplomatic opening.
Negotiating styles, capacity and timing
Differences in negotiating approach and technical expertise may also hinder progress. The U.S. delegation - including senior political appointees with a preference for rapid results - may find itself up against Iranian negotiators accustomed to more protracted bargaining. This dynamic has undermined prior rounds of talks and could likewise impede rapid agreement this time.
The compressed 60-day timetable may not provide sufficient space to craft a detailed and durable settlement. The U.S. president has described this phase as potentially "easier" than prior discussions, and both sides have incentives to end the conflict - domestic pressure on the U.S. from high gasoline prices and Iran's military and economic strain. Nevertheless, observers note the U.S. team may lack the technical specialists necessary to navigate nuclear verification and sanctions sequencing, while Iranian negotiators draw on experience in long, drawn-out diplomacy.
Even if negotiators can reach an accord within the window, questions will remain about whether the measures can be implemented and sustained. Past ceasefires reached with U.S. involvement have sometimes stalled during execution, highlighting the difference between signing an agreement and realizing its commitments on the ground.
Distrust and domestic political constraints
Mutual distrust is another structural barrier. Iran carries deep suspicions of the U.S. president, in part because of military actions taken in the middle of prior negotiations. The willingness of Iranian negotiators to make concessions may depend on the approval of their supreme leader, who is viewed as more hardline by some observers. The U.S. side also remains wary, mindful of past experiences they characterize as being led on without substantive compliance.
If these sources of distrust, along with domestic political pressures on both sides, cannot be managed, the negotiations risk collapse or at best the emergence of a limited, provisional understanding rather than a comprehensive settlement. Extending talks beyond the 60-day window is an option, but doing so would keep the risk of renewed hostilities alive.
Other pathways to failure
- If political pressure from Iran hawks in the U.S. leads to resistance to meaningful concessions, the U.S. negotiating position could harden and block compromise.
- If Iranian hardliners exert influence to push their delegation toward greater intransigence, the talks could similarly grind to a halt.
- If competing interpretations of what the memorandum of understanding actually permits create unrealistic expectations on either side, proposed steps could prove unworkable in practice.
- If the U.S. president makes public threats or takes military actions similar to those that occurred during earlier phases of the conflict, Iran might break off negotiations in response.
The coming sessions in Switzerland will test whether both sides can move past strategic brinkmanship toward enforceable, technical arrangements - particularly on nuclear verification, maritime governance, and the sequencing of sanctions relief and frozen assets. With a compressed timetable and significant domestic and regional constraints on both sides, the path to a comprehensive agreement remains uncertain.