Backpedals and Red Lines: Witkoff Wavers, Iran Waits.
The second round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks under Trump’s second presidency is due Saturday in Oman - and things are already off to a sloppy start.
Just 48 hours before flying out to meet his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi for another round of “indirect” negotiations, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff has managed to trip over his own messaging - with back-to-back public statements that now contradict each other.
On Monday night, Witkoff appeared on Fox’s Hannity and made what seemed to be a serious concession: “They [Iran] do not need to enrich past 3.67%.” That’s the limit set under the 2015 JCPOA deal - and for a moment, it sounded like Witkoff (and therefore Trump) might be willing to accept limited domestic enrichment by Iran.
For context: 3.67% enrichment is not weapons-grade.
Iran has, in recent years, been enriching to 20%, and even 60% - levels that, while not yet sufficient for an actual bomb, reduce the breakout time to (for the weapons grade 90%) mere weeks.
Allowing Iran to enrich at any level domestically has always been a Trump-era implicit (if not at all times explicit) red line.
So what happened?
By Tuesday morning, Witkoff was on X, reversing course:
“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal... It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, fair deal that will endure.”
Then came the kicker:
“Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
The second part (weaponization) is obvious: that is the whole point of these negotiations: to preclude Iran’s possible weaponization.
But elimination of enrichment?
Full dismantlement: not partial caps, not international monitoring, just total elimination.
That statement stands in direct contradiction to what Witkoff said less than 24 hours earlier.
So which is it?
Did Trump see Monday night’s Fox interview and intervene?
Or is Witkoff freelancing - with no clear strategic direction from above?
Either way, this zigzagging isn’t just embarrassing: it sends a signal to Tehran that the U.S. position is not yet settled - and that the American team is still figuring out what it wants, a vulnerability Iran can exploit.
From Tehran: Mixed Signals, Firm Lines
Iran, for its part, is sending calibrated, deliberate messages.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made his first public remarks on the talks on Tuesday, noting that:
“The talks have started off well... But we should be neither excessively optimistic nor extremely sceptical... We are highly distrustful of the opposite side, but we do have trust in our own capabilities. The red lines are clear both to us and the other party.”
Translation: We’re not walking away. But we are watching closely. And we’re not giving up our enrichment rights.
Indeed, multiple regime officials have reiterated in recent months that domestic enrichment is non-negotiable.
Giving up sovereign control over uranium enrichment is seen as political suicide note Tehran.
This puts Khamenei in a bind.
He wants sanctions relief, but giving up 60% enrichment capacity - let alone all enrichment - is a no-go.
What they might be open to is capping enrichment at JCPOA (3.67%) levels under strict verification regimes, just like before.
But even that would require significant U.S. concessions.
Verification, Weaponization, and What’s Next.
In his Fox interview, Witkoff signaled that verification of both enrichment levels and weaponization would be central to any Trump deal.
“This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program and then ultimately verification on weaponization.”
That final phrase - “verification on weaponization” - may sound reasonable. But here’s the catch: Iran claims it has no weaponization program.
And the U.S. intelligence community, as recently as last month, agrees:
“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”
So what is the U.S. really asking for here?
To monitor a program that doesn’t officially exist?
That’s a diplomatic Catch-22.
If Iran agrees, it tacitly acknowledges weaponization potential.
If it refuses, it reinforces suspicions.
And round and round we go.
Trump: Impatient and Ready to Strike?
Trump, for his part, is visibly frustrated.
On Tuesday, he complained that Iran was dragging its feet:
“I think they are tapping us along.”
And then the warning:
“Iran has to get rid of the concept of a nuclear weapon.”
This kind of language — abstract and absolute — may play well with Trump’s base, but it’s a strategic mess. How do you “get rid of a concept”?
Still, the broader message is clear: Trump wants a win. Soon. And if he doesn’t get it?
He’s again hinting at military action.
That’s not an empty threat.
Diego Garcia remains active.
U.S. assets have quietly increased their rotation through the Gulf.
And Israel is all too eager to jump into action.
Key Strategic Questions Going Forward
Is the U.S. Position Clear and Coherent?
Witkoff’s mixed messages raise the question: has the administration decided on a negotiating bottom line?
If not, Iran will probe and stall - exploiting confusion until Trump either caves or walks away and escalates.
Can Witkoff Recover Credibility?
His Monday comment on 3.67% enrichment was seen in Iran as an opening.
His Tuesday walk-back was interpreted as pressure from Washington.
Flip-flopping now weakens the perception of American resolve.
The Trump admin must consider involving other experts in these talks more directly.
It is also very peculiar that the Secretary of State is missing from the spotlight.
There could be a number of plausible explanations for this.
Is this done with Rubio’s assent and encouragement (of pushing for Witkoff to take charge)?
Perhaps Rubio is interested in avoiding a stain on his legacy as the nation’s chief diplomat once the negotiations (in his view) inevitably fail?
Perhaps Rubio is aware that this is a fruitless endeavor, and so he is not trying too hard to take back the reins here?
Another possibility: Trump is sure of his success and wants Witkoff to be the proxy for delivering it - avoiding a potential 2028 candidate (Rubio) taking the credit (perhaps he truly wants to run himself again for the third term..).
Or maybe he is not even thinking too far ahead?
Maybe he simply doesn’t want Rubio stealing the spotlight?
There is also a far more worrying alternative: that negotiations are there for pretenses and that Trump is not all too concerned about Plan B: military action.
It would then make sense for the admin to not use Rubio’s bandwidth on Iran - if it is going to escalate anyways.
The problem is that Witkoff is not a serious negotiator.
His credibility has long been in tatters and he must be accompanied by someone who knows what he is talking about.
For all his missteps on Signalgate, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz is actually quite competent and his presence would improve the state of these talks.
(side note: it would also help the National Security Adviser to earn back his credibility - now that that Trump seems intent on not firing him over signalgate)
What Does “Eliminate Enrichment” Actually Mean in Practice?
Are we talking about dismantling all centrifuges? Halting R&D? Closing Fordow? Or just capping activity to a certain %?
Without clarification, Iran will assume the maximalist interpretation — and reject it.
4. Will Trump Allow Israel to Play Its Own Game?
If the deal is stalled, nothing stops Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Trump could close eyes on this - or even actively encourage it.
(side note: we discussed the issue of Israeli involvement in more detail in a prior post here.)
The odds of a genuine agreement — one that eliminates enrichment, verifiably halts weaponization, and guarantees Israeli compliance - are vanishingly small.
But a thin deal, built on paper compromises and plausible deniability?
That remains very much on the table.
With that said, if the Trump admin insists on ‘‘no enrichment’’ as a red line, we would in effect be marching towards military action.
Since there it is almost inconceivable that Iran would ever accept such restrictive and undignifying conditions.
Indeed Witkoff does not know enough. // I must comment on the disgraceful situation involving the man being wrongfully detained in El Salvador. Neither that country's idiot-president nor ours has enough human decency to admit they can get him back here. Imagine if Biden or Obama claimed no power to do anything.....what would the GOP say. They must be worried about what he might say or do if he returned. Hope he will survive. This is an issue Bill Maher should have asked Trump about.