EXPLAINER: What challenges could stand in the way of US-Iran deal?

WASHINGTON - The stakes couldn’t be higher as US and Iran face an array of hurdles that could derail their comprehensive peace agreement.

While a breakthrough remains possible, most analysts are skeptical that the two sides can reach a comprehensive settlement within the 60-day window outlined in a memorandum of understanding approved this week by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian officials.

The interim deal has deferred the most contentious issues to a second phase of negotiations, leaving several critical disputes unresolved.

Nuclear dispute remains central obstacle

The future of Iran’s nuclear program remains the most significant challenge. Trump has said the conflict was driven in part by concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while Iran continues to insist it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.

One of the most difficult issues is Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium. The United States is seeking its removal or destruction, while Iran opposes both options, signaling only a possible willingness to dilute the material.

Another major disagreement concerns uranium enrichment. The U.S. has at times pushed for zero enrichment, but Iran maintains that it will not abandon what it calls its sovereign right to enrich uranium. Previous discussions have reportedly explored a temporary moratorium ranging from five to 20 years, though no agreement has been reached.

The scope and intensity of international inspections, similar to those under the 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by former President Barack Obama, also remain unresolved.

Strategic waterways and regional control

Tensions over the Strait of Hormuz also complicate negotiations. The waterway, which carries roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments, was effectively disrupted during the conflict following strikes involving the United States and Israel.

Under the memorandum of understanding, the strait is expected to reopen, but commercial shipping remains cautious. Washington has said passage will be toll-free, while Iran insists it will retain a management role, reflecting its strengthened leverage over the route.

Sanctions relief and frozen assets

Economic relief remains another major sticking point. Iran is seeking rapid sanctions relief and access to billions in frozen assets, while the United States says any easing will be gradual and conditional on compliance.

According to the text of the agreement read out by U.S. officials, Iran would immediately receive waivers allowing limited oil exports to resume. The move has drawn criticism from hardline opponents who argue it grants Tehran too many concessions too quickly.

Trump, however, may face political pressure at home over any perception of direct financial transfers to Iran, particularly given his past criticism of earlier nuclear agreements.

Regional actors and potential spoilers

Regional dynamics also pose risks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled that Israel will continue its operations against Iran-aligned groups, including Hezbollah, regardless of any U.S.-Iran agreement.

Although hostilities have eased following recent U.S. intervention, any renewed escalation could undermine the negotiations. Iran has also tied progress in the talks to broader regional de-escalation, including a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Clashing negotiating styles

The composition of the negotiating teams highlights another challenge. The U.S. delegation, which includes Vice President JD Vance, envoy Steve Witkoff, and adviser Jared Kushner, may struggle to match the technical depth and experience of Iran’s seasoned negotiators.

The United States is seeking rapid progress, while Iran traditionally prefers a slower, incremental bargaining process. That mismatch has contributed to stalled talks in the past.

Trump has described the current phase as potentially “easier” than earlier stages, but analysts warn that the 60-day timeline may be too short to resolve complex technical and political issues. The 2015 nuclear agreement took roughly two years to finalize.

Trust deficit remains deep

A significant barrier remains mutual distrust. Iranian leaders remain wary of Trump’s negotiating approach, particularly after previous strikes occurred during periods of diplomacy.

At the same time, U.S. officials remain skeptical about whether Iran will fully comply with any agreement, citing past breakdowns in enforcement and verification.

Iran’s internal decision-making may also hinge on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who is widely viewed as taking a harder line than his predecessor.

Uncertain path ahead

If the two sides cannot bridge their differences, they may opt for a limited agreement or extend negotiations beyond the current timeline. However, officials on both sides acknowledge that failure could raise the risk of renewed hostilities.

Other potential flashpoints include pressure from domestic hardliners, disputes over the interpretation of the memorandum of understanding, and abrupt political shifts that could derail diplomacy.

Even if an agreement is reached, questions remain about implementation and enforcement, particularly given the complexity of regional security dynamics and the history of stalled agreements in the Middle East. -Reporting and writing by Matt Spetalnick; editing by Don Durfee and Sanjeev Miglani/REUTERS