Both the United States and Iran have said they are close to reaching an agreement, but each side is presenting a different version of what any deal would contain. The two governments are blaming each other for misrepresenting the terms, according to analysts tracking the negotiations.
The discussions follow years of tensions over Iran's nuclear program and come as regional conflicts involving Israel and Hezbollah continue to reshape the Middle East landscape. Two policy experts spoke with PBS NewsHour to assess where talks stand and what obstacles remain.
What the Right Is Saying
Miad Maleki, born and raised in Iran and until last year an associate director for sanctioned Targeting at the U.S. Treasury Department focused on Iran, agreed that close doesn't count but emphasized the gap between what each side is seeking.
During JCPOA negotiations, Iranians were presenting a different version of what was being negotiated than what here in D.C. and Washington we were tracking as far as the talks, Maleki said.
On nuclear terms, Maleki explained that Iran wants any memorandum of understanding to avoid portraying it as giving up enrichment capability entirely. He noted that Iran has spent $900 billion or more on its nuclear program, which sells domestically as a source of electricity production but actually supplies less than 10 percent of the country's power needs. It is a sacred program for them.
Regarding frozen assets, Maleki said Iran wants funds presented as the regime receiving them directly, while the U.S. position limits access only for humanitarian trade. Those funds are not really blocked; they're restricted and can be used for non-sanctionable trade, he noted.
Maleki argued that the Iranian regime's declining domestic performance makes it more likely to turn outward through proxy forces like Hezbollah. They want to maintain Hezbollah's ability to deter Israel, he said. Even if they commit to not supporting proxy groups, they have made those commitments before but operate covertly.
What the Left Is Saying
Alan Eyre, who served in the State Department and was a senior member of the Obama administration's negotiating team for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, said both sides appear genuinely interested in reaching an agreement. He noted that military escalation does not serve either party's interests.
Close doesn't count, Eyre said. Eighty-five percent is actually sort of terrifying, because the closer you get, the harder it is. But I'm fairly confident that the traditional red lines that Iran has posited will not be violated.
Eyre argued that Iran is willing to accept limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for economic relief, whether through unblocking frozen assets or sanctions easing. He said any agreement would likely focus on beginning formal negotiations rather than resolving all outstanding issues at once.
On the question of Israel, Eyre acknowledged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces domestic pressure and could become a spoiler if Washington presses for Lebanon cease-fire terms as part of an Iran deal. If he's forced by the U.S. administration to stand down on Lebanon and on Hezbollah leading up to an election for prime minister, that's toxic for him, Eyre said.
What the Numbers Show
Iran has invested an estimated $900 billion or more in its nuclear program over decades, according to Maleki's assessment during the interview. The program currently produces less than 10 percent of Iran's electricity despite being marketed domestically as an energy solution.
U.S. officials have moved Iranian funds to Gulf accounts for humanitarian trade purposes under previous administrations, with restrictions on broader use. These frozen or restricted assets represent a key negotiating point between Washington and Tehran.
The gap between agreement in principle and final text has persisted through multiple rounds of nuclear diplomacy, including the original JCPOA negotiations that produced a 2015 deal later withdrawn from by the Trump administration.
The Bottom Line
Analysts across the political spectrum agree that announcing proximity to a deal does not equal reaching one. Key sticking points include whether Iran accepts verifiable limits on enrichment, how frozen assets are characterized and released, and whether Lebanon cease-fire terms become part of any broader agreement.
Israel's position remains a wildcard. Prime Minister Netanyahu faces domestic criticism over war aims related to Iran and Hezbollah, making U.S. pressure for regional de-escalation politically difficult.
What happens next depends largely on whether both sides can reconcile their conflicting versions of proposed terms before the current diplomatic window closes. Experts say the final text, once negotiated, will reveal whether genuine constraints on Iran's nuclear program are achievable or whether this represents another round of talks that fall short of binding commitments.