The US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the current conflict has been one of the most significant developments in a war full of historic firsts. US forces, acting in coordination with Israeli strikes, targeted what officials described as key nodes of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, dealing a potentially serious blow to a programme that had been the subject of decades of international diplomacy. But the strikes have also deepened Iranian scepticism about negotiating with Washington, given that a similar attack occurred during a previous round of talks.
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson explicitly referenced the “catastrophic experience” his country had with US diplomacy, a reference that encompassed both the attack on nuclear sites during the 12-day war last summer and the initiation of the current conflict while a comprehensive deal was reportedly within reach. From Tehran’s perspective, the US had repeatedly used negotiations as a cover to gather intelligence and buy time before striking, making any future engagement a dangerous gamble.
The 15-point US ceasefire proposal included conditions related to Iran’s nuclear programme, reportedly requiring its dismantlement as part of any peace deal. Iran had historically been willing to discuss significant nuclear limitations in exchange for comprehensive sanctions relief, but the current terms — with Iran’s facilities already under attack — were seen as attempting to extract unconditional nuclear disarmament from a country fighting for its survival.
The nuclear dimension of the conflict was one of the most sensitive for all parties. Israel had long regarded Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat and had been the primary advocate for military action to destroy it. The US had historically preferred diplomatic solutions but had ultimately supported the strike option. For Iran, its nuclear programme represented both a security guarantee and a point of national sovereignty that it was not willing to surrender under military pressure.
The path forward on the nuclear issue was deeply unclear. Iran rejected the US proposal and did not address the nuclear condition in its five-point counter-plan, suggesting it was not prepared to accept that framing of the issue. For any comprehensive settlement to be reached, the nuclear question would need to be addressed in a way that gave Iran some form of security guarantee in exchange for verifiable limitations. Given the depth of mistrust on both sides, achieving that balance would be an extraordinarily difficult diplomatic task.