d suggested that a pause could be offered as a goodwill gesture but only in exchange for meaningful concessions. “Iran may offer a kind of pause for its high-level enrichment of uranium for a while to build trust and take further steps,” Karimi said. “But it is not for free, and in return it should have different concessions, especially about lifting sanctions.” Karimi also emphasized that both Tehran and Washington share common ground on one fundamental issue: Iran not developing nuclear weapons. Missile Programme ‘Not on the Table’ Karimi made clear that Iran’s missile capabilities would remain off-limits in negotiations, particularly amid what Tehran views as a growing US military presence in the region. “As any other normal country in the world, [Iran] should have enough resources of conventional military options to retaliate,” he said. The statement underscores Tehran’s longstanding position that its conventional defence systems are non-negotiable, even if nuclear-related discussions advance. Three Possible Diplomatic Pathways Meanwhile, Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group, outlined three potential scenarios for a breakthrough in US-Iran talks. An Outline Agreement The first scenario would involve Washington signalling that Tehran’s proposal is “fundamentally workable,” with remaining gaps to be addressed in follow-up talks. Vaez described this as: “Not a final deal, but an outline to get to yes – followed by a meeting within days to iron out the remaining technicalities.” A Detailed Technical Accord The second pathway would see both sides reach a comprehensive technical agreement after several more days of intensive drafting and negotiations. This approach would require what Vaez called “painstaking drafting,” suggesting deeper, more substantive progress. A Vague Breakthrough Announcement The third possibility, according to Vaez, is a symbolic but unclear declaration of success one that announces a breakthrough without detailing what was actually agreed. He warned that such ambiguity could be dangerous. “If these talks conclude with the familiar choreography – ‘constructive atmosphere,’ ‘good progress,’ ‘consultations with capitals’ – without a clear political decision to bridge the remaining divides, the risks will not dissipate. They will compound.” “In this file, ambiguity is not benign. It is combustible.” The Stakes With sanctions relief, uranium enrichment limits, and regional security concerns all intertwined, the outcome of the current diplomatic efforts carries significant geopolitical weight. Whether negotiators pursue a clear technical agreement or settle for political optics could determine whether tensions ease or escalate further.