Background: a severed relationship
The United States and Iran broke off formal diplomatic relations in 1980, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Since then, communication between the two governments has typically run through third parties, most often Switzerland, which represents U.S. interests in Iran, and Oman, which has hosted back-channel contacts.
The 2015 nuclear deal
In 2015, Iran and six world powers — the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China — signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement limited Iran's uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent purity for 15 years, capped its stockpile of enriched uranium, and required intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, Iran received relief from a range of nuclear-related international sanctions.
U.S. withdrawal and 'maximum pressure'
In May 2018, the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, with the Trump administration arguing the deal failed to address Iran's ballistic missile program, regional activities, and the eventual expiration of nuclear limits. Washington reimposed sanctions under a 'maximum pressure' campaign aimed at cutting off Iran's oil exports and access to the global financial system.
Where Iran's program stands now
After the U.S. withdrawal, Iran gradually exceeded the deal's limits. The IAEA reported in 2024 that Iran had enriched uranium to 60 percent purity — short of the roughly 90 percent considered weapons-grade, but a sharp technical step beyond the 3.67 percent cap. Iran maintains its program is for civilian purposes; U.S. and European officials say the enrichment level has no plausible civilian use.
The case for direct negotiations
Supporters of direct talks argue that diplomacy backed by inspections is the only verified way to constrain Iran's nuclear activities. They contend that sanctions alone have not stopped enrichment and that face-to-face negotiations can resolve disputes faster than messages relayed through intermediaries. Proponents also point to the JCPOA period, when international inspectors had broad access to Iranian facilities, as evidence that talks can produce measurable limits.
The case against direct negotiations
Critics argue that negotiating directly with Tehran confers legitimacy on a government that the U.S. has designated a state sponsor of terrorism and that represses domestic dissent. They say past agreements provided sanctions relief without permanently ending enrichment or addressing Iran's missile program and support for regional armed groups. Some argue that maintaining economic pressure, alongside coordinated diplomacy with allies, offers more leverage than bilateral engagement.
How talks have happened recently
In the absence of formal ties, recent U.S.-Iran exchanges on nuclear and prisoner issues have been conducted indirectly, often with Oman or Qatar carrying messages between the two sides. European governments have also played a mediating role. Voters weighing this question are essentially deciding whether that indirect model should give way to direct, government-to-government negotiations.