President Trump expressed optimism this week that a lasting agreement — perhaps even one that would see Iran give up its enriched uranium — could be reached despite stalled talks and a fragile ceasefire. But diplomats who spent months negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal say deep mistrust and very different negotiating rhythms make a rapid resolution improbable.
Wendy Sherman, the U.S. lead negotiator on the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, said the administration’s recent posture misunderstands how talks with Tehran work. “You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR. “You can’t even do it in a week.” The JCPOA itself took roughly 18 months to finalize.
Rob Malley, another veteran of the JCPOA team and a former special envoy to Iran, contrasted styles bluntly: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.” The 2015 negotiations, shepherded by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated after an intense 19-day push in Vienna. Jon Finer, Kerry’s chief of staff, said Kerry’s patience was a decisive asset; Iranian negotiators would sit through long explanations, repeatedly resist key priorities, and force teams to revisit points many times over weeks or months before progress emerged.
Finer also noted how technically adept the Iranian delegation was. Lacking extensive expert advisers outside the room at times, they nonetheless mastered complex nuclear and sanctions details and negotiated in English across hundreds of pages and annexes.
Critics say recent U.S. gestures suggest Washington lacks that same stamina. Vice President Vance’s whirlwind trip to Islamabad was pilloried as a sign of impatience. Sherman argued the administration began with maximal demands that amounted to expecting Iran’s capitulation — a posture unlikely to succeed, since no sovereign state will meekly surrender core assets.
Mistrust runs especially deep now. Iran endured attacks on its nuclear sites in the past year — attributed to the U.S. and Israel while talks were ongoing — and additional strikes at the outset of the current conflict. Malley says those actions have pushed trust to historic lows. Tehran must weigh whether American commitments would hold; giving up a physical stockpile of enriched uranium is irreversible in the short term, and Iran would be reluctant to trade such tangible leverage for promises that could be reversed. Even in 2013–2015, the principle was “distrust but verify.”
Malley cautioned that lessons from the JCPOA are limited today. The Tehran leadership that agreed to that deal is no longer in place, Iran’s military posture has changed, and regional circumstances have shifted — meaning past experience should be applied carefully, not assumed to guarantee a repeat outcome.
Mark Freeman of the Institute for Integrated Transitions noted a structural effect of bargaining: negotiations themselves can raise the weaker party’s standing simply by drawing it into a formal process. Each side pursues leverage; Iran has threatened or used measures such as closing the Strait of Hormuz. More broadly, perceptions about who needs a deal more strongly shape outcomes. If one side appears desperate, that imbalance colors the entire bargaining dynamic.
Taken together, these dynamics — protracted, technical bargaining; deep mutual suspicion; differing negotiating temperaments; and shifting regional realities — help explain why seasoned diplomats view a quick truce or instant surrender as implausible, even if leaders publicly express optimism.