Tehran – As diplomatic efforts to revive the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world’s powers gain momentum again, much of the international focus continues to focus on what Iran has to do: nuclear obligations, testing systems, enrichment restrictions and regional action.
What is notable in many of these arguments, however, is the equally rigorous conversation about the United States’ obligation to provide in return.
The failure of the US to maintain its own commitment to the 2015 nuclear deal, particularly Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2018 agreement in his first term as president, has had widespread results. It not only undermined the transaction itself, it also eroded the trust needed to make future contracts meaningful or sustainable.
If a new nuclear deal is reached, Iran’s expectations must be addressed not as a secondary condition but as a core element of the contract. At the heart of Iran’s position is one unnegotiable demand. It is an effective, verifiable, irreversible lifting of sanctions. Without this there is no real agreement.
Sanctions Relief: The core of Iran’s demands
Iran’s nuclear program has always been linked to the issue of sanctions, perhaps, rather than the technical aspects of the program itself. For Iran, the JCPOA was more than just a nuclear agreement. It was an economical opening. The country has agreed to limit its nuclear capabilities in exchange for relief from the US and international sanctions crippling. But that bailout never came to fruition even before the Trump administration’s withdrawal.
One important lesson Iran has drawn from the experience of the JCPOA is the insufficient vague promise of sanctions relief. Iranian banks and businesses continued to face serious obstacles due to the persistent presence of US secondary sanctions. Worse, the Trump administration’s decision to leave the deal showed that such commitments could be reversed for almost free.
This time, Iran is demanding more than paper guarantees.
According to Iranian economic expert Majid Shakkari, the current debate overwhelmingly focuses on what the US expects: restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, but Iran completely ignores what it can get in return.
“There has been a lot of debate about what a relatively stable or logical arrangement between Iran and the US would look like, but almost all of it focuses on the expected benefits of the US, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear activity by a variety of names, such as temporary suspensions and international consortiums,” Schekari tells the Tehran Times. “But nothing has been said about what Iran should get.”
He argues that simply avoiding military conflicts is not a sufficient benefit for Iran. “If Washington really wanted to use a military campaign to cut Iran’s programs, it wouldn’t be a little wait,” an economic expert argued. “So common sense dictates that sustainable agreements must include Iran’s measurable economic benefits.”
From sanctions relief to tangible economic benefits
Shakeli argues that Iran must shift its focus from mere “sanctions relief” to what it calls economic benefits, or “measurable benefits.” He explains:
“Sansions are just one of many tools used to put pressure on Iran. The US also employs tariffs, patent control and financial risk assessments, but none of them fall under the usual sanctions framework. Therefore, it is wrong to focus solely on “sanctions relief.” ”
Instead, he says, Iranian negotiating teams must demand quantifiable economic benefits in exchange for the US quantifiable nuclear demand. “If Americans want verifiable restrictions with IAEA surveillance and even dictate US linked monitors, Iran should seek verifiable economic benefits supervised by their own institutions, such as the central bank and the Ministry of Economy.”
Shakeri believes that strategic pivots will benefit both sides. “Iran and the US can engage in transactions that compensate for each other’s weaknesses, rather than exchanging strengths.”
He points out that while Iran needs capital goods for industrial growth, particularly under the second Trump administration, the US is looking for ways to maintain energy control amidst pressure from OPEC+ and rising Russian and Saudi Arabia production.
“These complementary needs provide a fertile foundation for solutions that are beneficial to both parties that do not necessarily involve political concessions or diplomatic humiliation,” he commented.
Experts also emphasize that durable arrangements should avoid cooperation with regional countries and instead focus on the core needs of the parties directly, mutually and the parties.
Enrichment, independence and advancement
On a visit to the spirit us of Imam Khomeini on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragut reaffirmed Iran’s right to enrich the stems of uranium from its fundamental principles: resistance to foreign rule.
“There’s a lot to say about enrichment as one of the nation’s essentials, but more fundamentally, our principle of guidance in these negotiations is to reject control,” he said.
After an indirect US and speaking in Rome, Araguchi called the session “one of the most professional rounds ever,” confirming that Iran’s “completely clear” position was clearly communicated.
Separately, nuclear Mohammad Eslami has repeatedly said that Iran’s nuclear orbit is driven by national interests, not by foreign directions.
For Iran, nuclear deals must be more than a diplomatic gesture. It must serve as a binding economic agreement that provides measurable and protected benefits. Iranian officials believe the nuclear program cannot be used as a negotiation tip without guaranteed concrete benefits.
And those interests must be isolated from the political whims of future US administrations.
The path to sustainable agreements is implemented not only through centrifugal holes and inspection checklists, but also through ports, banks and economic frameworks. Nuclear contracts are truly feasible only if both parties are bound and benefited.