Host: Welcome back. As promised, we are joined now by Gregg Roman, Executive Director of the Middle East Forum, where part of the group’s focus is on containing Iran. Gregg, thank you for joining us.
Gregg Roman: Great to be here.
Host: Over the weekend, we saw reports that U.S. and Iranian officials met to discuss the future of Iran’s nuclear program. The New York Times reported that Iranian officials suggested these negotiations would not require dismantling their nuclear infrastructure. What’s your reaction to this potential development and the fact that these two countries are continuing to meet?
Gregg Roman: Compared to Iran’s nuclear program ten years ago under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during the Obama administration, Iran’s capabilities have significantly advanced. They now have dozens more nuclear sites, advanced centrifuges, and approximately 606 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%—close to the 91% threshold for nuclear weapons. They’re likely just weeks away from a bomb. The idea that Iran could retain its nuclear infrastructure is a fantasy that won’t be fulfilled under this administration. President Trump has been clear about dismantling not only Iran’s nuclear weapons program but its entire nuclear infrastructure. Allowing Iran to keep this capability would derail negotiations and fail to meet the president’s objectives.
Host: There seems to be a divide among those around Trump between those who support negotiations and those who believe Iran can’t be trusted, making talks pointless. Do you believe negotiations are beneficial to the U.S.?
Gregg Roman: I support negotiations as an opportunity to resolve this issue without the U.S. or its allies resorting to kinetic action against Iran’s nuclear program. However, I doubt Iran will uphold its end of the bargain. They’re not willing to fully dismantle their program; they’re just buying time and trying to make the president look good. Negotiations are a necessary step before considering harsher options, but I expect Iran will fail to show genuine commitment to dismantling their program.
Host: Steve Witkoff, who’s been leading these efforts for the Trump administration, suggested negotiations could allow Iran to enrich uranium up to 3.6%, similar to the Obama-era deal. He later clarified there would be no enrichment. What are the implications of even a small amount, like 3.6%, of enrichment?
Gregg Roman: If Iran retains the full nuclear fuel cycle capability—procuring uranium ore, pursuing a plutonium program, and operating centrifuges—they could easily scale from 3.6% to 60% or 90% enrichment. The only way to ensure Iran cannot enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels is to eliminate their enrichment infrastructure entirely. Witkoff’s initial comment was corrected by the Trump administration’s National Security Council, which clarified that the U.S. will not allow Iran to retain any enrichment capability, whether at 3.6% or 90%. It must be dismantled.
Host: We also know Iranian leaders have been talking to Russian officials outside these negotiations. What hurdles could Russia pose to a potential breakthrough between Washington and Tehran?
Gregg Roman: Russia has an interest in undermining these negotiations. They’re encouraging Iran to drag out talks and create problems for the U.S., possibly under the guise of hosting Iran’s enriched uranium. This prevents cooperation and serves Russia’s strategic goals. For Russia to contribute positively, they would need to help dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, including the Russian-built Bushehr reactor, Iran’s only active nuclear reactor. Otherwise, Russia is simply trying to sabotage a successful U.S.-Iran negotiation.
Host: Gregg Roman, Executive Director of the Middle East Forum, thank you for your insights.
