U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks

U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks

Delegation members stand with security as they arrive at the Omani embassy, where the fifth round of U.S.-Iran talks takes place, in Rome, Italy, May 23, 2025.
Delegation members stand with security as they arrive at the Omani embassy, where the fifth round of U.S.-Iran talks takes place, in Rome, Italy, May 23, 2025. Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters

May 23, 2025 9:43 am (EST)

Delegation members stand with security as they arrive at the Omani embassy, where the fifth round of U.S.-Iran talks takes place, in Rome, Italy, May 23, 2025.
Delegation members stand with security as they arrive at the Omani embassy, where the fifth round of U.S.-Iran talks takes place, in Rome, Italy, May 23, 2025. Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Welcome to the Daily News Brief, CFR’s flagship morning newsletter summarizing the top global news and analysis of the day. 

Subscribe to the Daily News Brief to receive it every weekday morning.

Top of the Agenda

More on:

Daily News Brief

U.S. and Iranian negotiators are meeting in Rome today for their fifth round of nuclear talks. The two sides have clashed in public comments about uranium enrichment in recent days, but a U.S. State Department spokesperson said yesterday that the meeting “would not be happening if we didn’t think that there was potential for it.” The U.S. is being represented by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and the State Department’s Policy Planning Director Michael Anton, and Iran by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

What the parties are saying.

  • The most recent friction was triggered by Witkoff describing a U.S. “red line” last Sunday that Iran should not be able to have “even 1 percent of an enrichment capability.” In prior weeks, some U.S. officials had suggested they might be able to accept a low level of enrichment. 
  • Multiple Iranian officials publicly rejected the zero-enrichment position. The strict anti-enrichment comments from U.S. officials intensified after more than two hundred Republican lawmakers wrote a letter on May 14 calling for such a stance.
  • Araghchi posted on social media yesterday that “zero nuclear weapons” meant there was a deal, while “zero enrichment” meant no deal.
  • U.S. President Donald Trump “wants to see a deal with Iran struck, if one can be struck,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said yesterday.

The regional backdrop.

  • Israel is considering striking Iran militarily, multiple news outlets have reported. Trump discussed Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a call yesterday, Leavitt said, adding that Trump asserted Washington seeks a deal with Iran.
  • Araghchi wrote in a letter publicized by Iran’s mission to the United Nations yesterday that if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran would consider the United States responsible. If Israel continues to threaten Iran, he wrote, Iran would take unspecified steps to protect its nuclear materials.
  • Trump has also threatened U.S. military strikes on Iran if talks fail. 

“On a macro level, the two important Iranian objectives in these talks are they want to avert another military attack on their nuclear facilities, [and] they want to avert another maximum pressure economic campaign…I think an interim deal or a smaller deal is going to be a much easier political lift in both Washington and in Tehran.”

The Carnegie Endowment’s Karim Sadjadpour tells The President’s Inbox

More on:

Daily News Brief

Across the Globe

Ban on Harvard international students. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard’s permission to enroll international students, saying the school did not provide the government requested records of student conduct. DHS said the school had created a “hostile” environment for Jewish students. Harvard called the action “unlawful.” Foreign students make up around 27 percent of the student body; the university’s director of media relations say they “enrich the university—and this nation—immeasurably.”

Charges in DC shooting. The U.S. Justice Department filed federal murder charges against the suspect in Wednesday’s killings of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. Elias Rodriguez confessed to the killings, police said. Investigators are also considering hate crime and terrorism charges. Representatives of Jewish organizations called for more government funding for their safety in the wake of the attack, which comes amid a rise of antisemitic incidents in the United States and around the world following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023.

 Tracking the great tech race. A new study by European research center Bruegel examined patents to measure the relative progress of China, the European Union (EU), and the United States on the research frontier of three critical technologies: quantum computing, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence (AI). It concluded that U.S. actors dominate innovation in quantum computing and, to a lesser extent, AI, while Chinese actors are ahead in semiconductors, and the EU lags in all three.

U.S. weighs troops in South Korea. The Trump administration is consideringpulling thousands of troops out of South Korea, unnamed sources told the Wall Street Journal. In one reported scenario, roughly 4,500 troops would depart for other parts of the Indo-Pacific, including Guam. A Pentagon spokesperson said there were no policy announcements to make, South Korea’s defense ministry declined to comment, and South Korea’s military said it had not discussed a troop reduction with Washington.

U.S. sanctions on Sudan. The United States determined the Sudanese army used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war last year and will impose new sanctions on Sudan beginning on or around June 6, the State Department said yesterday. Sudan’s government responded that the measure “lacks any moral or legal basis.” The announcement did not specify which weapons were used or where; unnamed U.S. officials told the New York Times in January that Sudan’s army appeared to have used chlorine gas in remote parts of the country.  

North Korea warship damaged. In an unusual acknowledgement of a military malfunction, North Korean state media reported yesterday that the country’s second naval destroyer was damaged during its launch event. Seawater flowed into the ship, state media said today. Satellites showed that North Korea placed a cover over the partially submerged ship, which Pyongyang had reportedly rushed to complete.

Aid distributed in Gaza. Humanitarian aid reached warehouses inside Gaza for the first time in eleven weeks, UN agencies said yesterday. The aid included flour and baby food. Twenty-nine children and elderly people in the territory died from “starvation-related” causes in the last few days, the Palestinian Authority health minister stated yesterday. Israel said 107 aid trucks crossed the border into Gaza yesterday, while UN agencies say an estimated 600 per day are needed to address the territory’s humanitarian crisis. 

UK deal on Chagos Islands base. The United Kingdom (UK) reached a deal with Mauritius—its former colony—to give up its claim over the disputed Chagos Islands and pay Mauritius some $136 million per year to lease the area that houses a U.S.-UK military base. The UK separated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965, shortly before Mauritius gained independence.

What’s Next

  • Today, India’s foreign minister is visiting Germany.

  • On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron begins a visit to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore.

  • On Sunday, Suriname holds a general election and Venezuela holds legislative and regional elections.

  • On Monday, an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders summit begins in Malaysia.

  • On Monday, the African Development Bank begins its annual meetings in Ivory Coast.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Sign up to receive CFR President Mike Froman’s analysis on the most important foreign policy story of the week, delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon. Subscribe to The World This Week. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in what could be the most consequential conflict in the region since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CFR’s experts continue to cover all aspects of the evolving conflict on CFR.org. While the situation evolves, including the potential for direct U.S. involvement, it is worth touching on another recent development in the region which could have far-reaching consequences: the diffusion of cutting-edge U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology to leading Gulf powers. The defining feature of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to question and, in many cases, reject the prevailing consensus on matters ranging from European security to trade. His approach to AI policy is no exception. Less than six months into his second term, Trump is set to fundamentally rewrite the United States’ international AI strategy in ways that could influence the balance of global power for decades to come. In February, at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance delivered a rousing speech at the Grand Palais, and made it clear that the Trump administration planned to abandon the Biden administration’s safety-centric approach to AI governance in favor of a laissez-faire regulatory regime. “The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance said. “It will be won by building—from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.” And as Trump’s AI czar David Sacks put it, “Washington wants to control things, the bureaucracy wants to control things. That’s not a winning formula for technology development. We’ve got to let the private sector cook.” The accelerationist thrust of Vance and Sacks’s remarks is manifesting on a global scale. Last month, during Trump’s tour of the Middle East, the United States announced a series of deals to permit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to import huge quantities (potentially over one million units) of advanced AI chips to be housed in massive new data centers that will serve U.S. and Gulf AI firms that are training and operating cutting-edge models. These imports were made possible by the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a Biden administration executive order that capped chip exports to geopolitical swing states in the Gulf and beyond, and which represents the most significant proliferation of AI capabilities outside the United States and China to date. The recipe for building and operating cutting-edge AI models has a few key raw ingredients: training data, algorithms (the governing logic of AI models like ChatGPT), advanced chips like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) or Tensor Processing Units (TPUs)—and massive, power-hungry data centers filled with advanced chips.  Today, the United States maintains a monopoly of only one of these inputs: advanced semiconductors, and more specifically, the design of advanced semiconductors—a field in which U.S. tech giants like Nvidia and AMD, remain far ahead of their global competitors. To weaponize this chokepoint, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration placed a series of ever-stricter export controls on the sale of advanced U.S.-designed AI chips to countries of concern, including China.  The semiconductor export control regime culminated in the final days of the Biden administration with the rollout of the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule—a comprehensive global framework for limiting the proliferation of advanced semiconductors. The rule sorted the world into three camps. Tier 1 countries, including core U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, were exempt from restrictions, whereas tier 3 countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, were subject to the extremely stringent controls. The core controversy of the diffusion rule stemmed from the tier 2 bucket, which included some 150 countries including India, Mexico, Israel, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Many tier 2 states, particularly Gulf powers with deep economic and military ties to the United States, were furious.  The rule wasn’t just a matter of how many chips could be imported and by whom. It refashioned how the United States could steer the distribution of computing resources, including the regulation and real-time monitoring of their deployment abroad and the terms by which the technologies can be shared with third parties. Proponents of the restrictions pointed to the need to limit geopolitical swing states’ access to leading AI capabilities and to prevent Chinese, Russian, and other adversarial actors from accessing powerful AI chips by contracting cloud service providers in these swing states.  However, critics of the rule, including leading AI model developers and cloud service providers, claimed that the constraints would stifle U.S. innovation and incentivize tier 2 countries to adopt Chinese AI infrastructure. Moreover, critics argued that with domestic capital expenditures on AI development and infrastructure running into the hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025 alone, fresh capital and scale-up opportunities in the Gulf and beyond represented the most viable option for expanding the U.S. AI ecosystem. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real time. In May, the Trump administration killed the diffusion rule, days before it would have been set into motion, in part to facilitate the export of these cutting-edge chips abroad to the Gulf powers. This represents a fundamental pivot for AI policy, but potentially also in the logic of U.S. grand strategy vis-à-vis China. The most recent era of great power competition, the Cold War, was fundamentally bipolar and the United States leaned heavily on the principle of non-proliferation, particularly in the nuclear domain, to limit the possibility of new entrants. We are now playing by a new set of rules where the diffusion of U.S. technology—and an effort to box out Chinese technology—is of paramount importance. Perhaps maintaining and expanding the United States’ global market share in key AI chokepoint technologies will deny China the scale it needs to outcompete the United States—but it also introduces the risk of U.S. chips falling into the wrong hands via transhipment, smuggling, and other means, or being co-opted by authoritarian regimes for malign purposes.  Such risks are not illusory: there is already ample evidence of Chinese firms using shell entities to access leading-edge U.S. chips through cloud service providers in Southeast Asia. And Chinese firms, including Huawei, were important vendors for leading Gulf AI firms, including the UAE’s G-42, until the U.S. government forced the firm to divest its Chinese hardware as a condition for receiving a strategic investment from Microsoft in 2024. In the United States, the ability to build new data centers is severely constrained by complex permitting processes and limited capacity to bring new power to the grid. What the Gulf countries lack in terms of semiconductor prowess and AI talent, they make up for with abundant capital, energy, and accommodating regulations. The Gulf countries are well-positioned for massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The question is simply, using whose technology—American or Chinese—and on what terms? In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it will be American technology for now. The question remains whether the diffusion of the most powerful dual-use technologies of our day will bind foreign users to the United States and what impact it will have on the global balance of power.  We welcome your feedback on this column. Let me know what foreign policy issues you’d like me to address next by replying to [email protected].

Iran

As Trump weighs whether to join Israel's bombing campaign of Iran, some have questioned if the president has the authority to involve the U.S. military in this conflict.

RealEcon

The Global Fragility Act (GFA) serves as a blueprint for smart U.S. funding to prevent and end conflict, and bipartisan congressional leaders advocate reauthorization of the 2019 law.