US-Iran diplomatic road long, arduous but why ‘grand bargain’ remains the goal

The Trump administration, however, appears committed to thinking big. Vice President J D Vance, expected to leave for a second round of talks in Pakistan soon, has publicly framed the negotiations not as incremental diplomacy but as the quest for a “grand bargain” — an effort to secure a decisive, system-shaping agreement. The objective is expansive: a comprehensive settlement that trades limits on Iran’s nuclear programme and regional posture for full economic normalisation and reintegration into the global system.

This ambition departs sharply from the logic of the 2015 nuclear deal, which was deliberately narrow and technocratic. That agreement sought to cap Iran’s nuclear capabilities but did not address the broader sources of geopolitical conflict between Washington and Tehran, or the interests of US allies neighbouring Iran. The emerging framework now aims at broadening the settlement.

In its essence, the proposed bargain is sweeping. Iran would accept stringent and verifiable constraints on its nuclear programme, potentially including a rollback of enrichment levels, tighter inspection regimes, and limits on stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. More consequentially, Tehran would be expected to recalibrate its regional strategy — reducing support for non-state armed groups and scaling back its influence across theatres such as Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

In return, the United States would move towards dismantling its long-standing and massive sanctions architecture against Iran. This would involve lifting both primary and secondary sanctions, unfreezing Iranian financial assets, and facilitating Tehran’s return to global energy markets and financial networks. The end goal is not merely arms control, but a broader economic and political normalisation.

Recent reports suggest that both sides are exploring steps that will allow each to claim early gains while preserving leverage for subsequent stages. This, of course, is easier said than done. Powerful veto-wielders in both capitals can nix many elements of the proposed grand bargain.

Internal divisions in both Washington and Tehran help generate mixed signals, weaken negotiating credibility, and undermine the entire process. Any movement towards a grand bargain is likely to be in clearly defined stages.

The most plausible pathway begins with a political understanding — a broad memorandum outlining principles of de-escalation, mutual recognition, and the desired end-state. This would then be followed by detailed technical negotiations on nuclear verification, sanctions relief, and regional security, with carefully calibrated sequencing.

Even here, the challenges are formidable. Verification of nuclear commitments, though complex, falls within the competence of established international mechanisms. Far more difficult is the question of regional behaviour. Measuring and enforcing limits on influence exercised through non-state actors presents a conceptual and operational challenge that diplomacy has rarely resolved successfully.

Sequencing remains another major obstacle. Iran will demand credible and front-loaded sanctions relief to justify concessions; the United States will insist on demonstrable compliance before relinquishing economic leverage. Bridging this gap will require a finely balanced process of reciprocal steps, with built-in safeguards against backsliding.

Despite all the challenges, the logic of a grand bargain persists. After decades of coercion, confrontation, and failed incrementalism, both sides are confronting the limits of their current strategies. Although the obstacles are substantial, and the risks of failure high, the fact that Washington and Tehran may sit down for another round of talks is a cause for modest optimism.

(C. Raja Mohan is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)