A new nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran looks increasingly difficult—but not necessarily impossible.
As of September 9, 2026, diplomacy has been overshadowed by renewed military confrontation, attacks on shipping in the Gulf and growing pressure on Iran's economy. The two countries are no longer simply arguing over the terms of a nuclear agreement; they are also trying to resolve a much broader security crisis. Reuters+1
### A diplomatic opening has largely collapsed
Earlier efforts to restart negotiations created some hope that Washington and Tehran could find a new framework. Oman and other intermediaries helped maintain communication between the two sides, while negotiators discussed nuclear restrictions, sanctions relief and wider regional concerns.
That diplomatic momentum has since weakened sharply. The United States has intensified economic pressure on Iran and military operations in the region, while Iran has continued retaliatory actions and threatened restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz. Financial Times+1
U.S. Vice President JD Vance said recently that Washington was not currently negotiating with Tehran while Iranian attacks on shipping continued. The statement underscored how far the relationship has moved from conventional nuclear diplomacy. Reuters
### Why reaching a deal is so difficult
The biggest obstacle is that Washington and Tehran appear to want fundamentally different things.
The United States wants stronger restrictions and guarantees surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities, while also seeking greater regional security and the protection of commercial shipping. Iran, meanwhile, wants sanctions relief and is unlikely to accept an agreement that eliminates its ability to maintain a civilian nuclear program.
Trust is another enormous problem. The collapse of previous diplomatic arrangements has made Iranian officials skeptical that American commitments would survive a change in political circumstances. At the same time, U.S. officials argue that Iran's nuclear activities and regional military capabilities require stronger safeguards.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has also warned about the difficulty of monitoring Iran's nuclear program. A recent draft resolution backed by the United States, Britain, France and Germany could refer Iran's non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council. The IAEA has reported that Iran possesses hundreds of kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, while access to some facilities remains restricted. AP News
### The Strait of Hormuz has become central
One of the most important changes is that the dispute is no longer limited to nuclear policy.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which a major share of the world's oil supply passes, has become a major point of confrontation. Iran has threatened restrictions on shipping, while the United States has increased its military presence and operations intended to keep maritime routes open.
Recent attacks have already disrupted energy markets and pushed oil prices higher. Reuters reported that the latest escalation includes U.S. strikes on Iranian oil tankers and attacks by Iran-backed Houthi forces on Saudi targets. Reuters
This creates a complicated diplomatic equation. Any future agreement may have to address not only Iran's nuclear activities, but also maritime security, sanctions, missiles and Iran's relationships with regional armed groups.
### Could negotiations restart?
Yes—but probably not under the conditions that exist today.
For diplomacy to become realistic again, both sides would need a reason to step back from escalation. Iran would likely seek meaningful sanctions and economic relief, while Washington would demand verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear and military capabilities.
There is also a potential role for intermediaries such as Oman and other regional governments. Back-channel diplomacy can sometimes continue even when official negotiations have stopped.
But the immediate outlook is bleak. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently acknowledged that Washington may not reach a new nuclear agreement with Iran and suggested that an agreement could potentially require a different Iranian government. The Guardian
### What would a realistic deal look like?
A future agreement may need to be more limited and incremental than the original 2015 nuclear deal.
Instead of attempting to settle every disagreement at once, Washington and Tehran could pursue a series of smaller arrangements:
- Limits and monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities.
- Greater access for international nuclear inspectors.
- A phased reduction of certain U.S. sanctions.
- Commitments to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
- Restrictions on attacks against commercial shipping.
- Confidence-building measures between U.S. and Iranian forces.
- Further negotiations on missiles and regional security.
Such an approach would not resolve the fundamental U.S.-Iran rivalry, but it could reduce the risk of another major escalation.
### The economic pressure on Iran matters
Iran's worsening economic situation could eventually create an incentive for negotiations. The country is dealing with sanctions, disrupted oil exports, inflation and pressure on its currency.
Reuters reported that Iran's oil exports have been severely affected and that damage around the country's major oil infrastructure has compounded the economic pressure. Iranian officials have simultaneously insisted that the country will respond more forcefully to further attacks. Reuters
The problem for Washington is that economic pressure does not automatically produce political concessions. Tehran may conclude that accepting a deal under military pressure would weaken its position and encourage further demands.
### So, is a U.S.-Iran deal still possible?
**Possible, yes. Probable in the immediate future, no.**
The central question is no longer simply whether Iran will accept limits on its nuclear program. The larger issue is whether Washington and Tehran can first establish enough trust—or at least enough mutual interest—to stop the cycle of military escalation.
A lasting agreement would probably require compromises from both sides. Iran would need to accept meaningful and verifiable nuclear restrictions, while the United States would need to offer sanctions relief substantial enough to make those restrictions politically worthwhile for Tehran.
For now, the battlefield is moving faster than diplomacy. The longer the confrontation continues, the harder it becomes for either government to compromise without appearing to surrender.
Yet history also shows why a deal cannot be ruled out completely. When the costs of confrontation become high enough, even deeply hostile governments can return to negotiations.
**The door to a U.S.-Iran agreement is not completely closed—but at the moment, it is much narrower than it was earlier this year.**
Sources
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire