Nuclear negotiations cannot be resolved in 72 hours at a table
Desde los primeros disparos del 28 de febrero, Washington y Teherán recorren ahora un camino inverso: de la confrontación hacia un entendimiento frágil pero real. El acuerdo que toma forma no resuelve la cuestión nuclear —la más cargada de historia y de riesgo—, sino que la aplaza con deliberada prudencia, priorizando la reapertura del Estrecho de Ormuz y un alivio económico que ambas partes necesitan. Es la vieja lógica de la diplomacia: avanzar por lo posible para no naufragar en lo imposible.
- El Estrecho de Ormuz, parcialmente bloqueado desde el inicio del conflicto, se ha convertido en la palanca central de las negociaciones, pues su cierre golpea tanto a la economía global como a la propia Iran.
- La discrepancia entre medios estadounidenses e iraníes sobre si el borrador incluye o no compromisos nucleares revela que las dos partes aún no hablan el mismo idioma sobre lo más esencial.
- Israel presiona con fuerza: exige el desmantelamiento de las instalaciones de enriquecimiento de uranio y la eliminación de los stockpiles existentes, condiciones que Teherán no ha aceptado públicamente.
- El secretario de Estado Rubio defiende una secuencia de 60 días —primero el estrecho y las sanciones, luego la negociación nuclear intensa— con el respaldo declarado de siete u ocho países de la región.
- Pakistán se prepara para acoger nuevas rondas de negociación, mientras la UE y el Reino Unido reclaman garantías explícitas de que Irán no desarrollará armas nucleares antes de dar su respaldo al acuerdo.
Tras semanas de escalada que arrancaron con la ofensiva conjunta estadounidense e israelí del 28 de febrero, Washington y Teherán exploran ahora, con cautela visible, una salida negociada. El propio presidente Trump ha moderado las expectativas sobre la velocidad del proceso, señal de que nadie en la sala se hace ilusiones fáciles.
El núcleo del acuerdo emergente no es nuclear sino geográfico: la reapertura del Estrecho de Ormuz, bloqueado parcialmente por Irán desde los primeros días del conflicto. El marco que circula en medios de ambos países contempla una tregua de 60 días durante la cual Irán restauraría progresivamente el tráfico marítimo, a cambio de una suspensión temporal de sanciones estadounidenses, permiso para reanudar ventas de petróleo y la liberación parcial de activos iraníes congelados en el exterior.
La cuestión nuclear queda deliberadamente aplazada, aunque no ignorada. Rubio fue explícito desde Nueva Delhi: resolver el programa nuclear no es asunto de 72 horas en una mesa de negociación. Si el estrecho se reabre según lo previsto, Estados Unidos lanzaría durante esos 60 días conversaciones intensivas sobre enriquecimiento de uranio y los compromisos de no proliferación. Sin embargo, ya hay fricción: Axios afirma que el borrador iraní incluye una renuncia al armamento nuclear, mientras que Tasnim —vinculado a los Guardianes de la Revolución— sostiene que el texto actual no contiene ninguna cláusula nuclear, y que esos asuntos se abordarán en un memorando posterior.
Esa divergencia inquieta a Israel, que obtuvo de Trump la garantía de que cualquier acuerdo final debe incluir el desmantelamiento de las instalaciones de enriquecimiento y la retirada de los stockpiles de uranio altamente enriquecido. Irán, por su parte, ha evitado pronunciarse oficialmente, aunque rechaza con firmeza la idea de que persiga armas atómicas. La Comisión Europea y el Reino Unido han celebrado el avance pero exigen garantías explícitas antes de sumarse al respaldo.
Lo que emerge es un acuerdo construido en capas: primero el cese del fuego y la arteria económica; después el alivio de sanciones; y finalmente, prometida pero no garantizada, la negociación nuclear que todos consideran imprescindible y nadie sabe aún cómo resolver.
After weeks of escalating tensions that began with a coordinated U.S. and Israeli offensive on February 28th, Washington and Tehran are now cautiously exploring a path toward peace. The shift marks a dramatic reversal, though the mood remains guarded—President Trump himself has tempered expectations about how quickly a deal might materialize.
At the center of current discussions is not the nuclear question, but rather control of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway that Iran has partially blockaded since the war's opening days. Both American and Iranian media outlets began releasing details of a potential memorandum on Sunday, and while the specifics remain contested, there is broad agreement on the framework: a 60-day truce during which Iran would gradually restore maritime traffic through the strait, coupled with temporary suspension of some U.S. sanctions and permission for Iranian oil sales to resume. Frozen Iranian assets held abroad would also be partially released.
The nuclear issue, however, remains the most fraught element—and the most deliberately postponed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to the New York Times from New Delhi, was blunt about the timeline: nuclear negotiations cannot be resolved in 72 hours at a negotiating table. They are, he said, highly technical matters requiring serious, sustained engagement. If the strait reopens as planned, Rubio indicated the U.S. would then launch intensive talks over the next 60 days focused on uranium enrichment, highly enriched uranium stockpiles, and Iran's commitment never to pursue nuclear weapons. He cited support from seven or eight regional countries for this sequenced approach.
Yet the nuclear question has already created friction. The American outlet Axios reported that Iran's draft agreement includes a commitment to forgo nuclear weapons development. But Tasnim, an Iranian news agency with ties to the Revolutionary Guards, countered that the current draft contains no nuclear provisions whatsoever—those matters are being deferred to a later memorandum. This discrepancy has alarmed Israel, which secured Trump's agreement that any final accord must include dismantling of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and removal of its highly enriched uranium stockpiles.
Iran has avoided official comment on the emerging deal but has firmly rejected the notion that it seeks to build atomic bombs. The European Commission and United Kingdom have welcomed the progress but have demanded explicit guarantees that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan, serving as mediator, expects to host new rounds of negotiations soon, following an unsuccessful attempt in April.
On the question of the strait itself, both Axios and Tasnim agree that reopening it is central to the agreement. But they diverge on what that means. Axios describes a 60-day truce with Iran normalizing transit. Tasnim speaks of a gradual recovery of pre-war shipping volumes, with the crucial caveat that this would not mean a complete return to the previous status quo—the strait would remain under Iranian control, just with restored passage.
What emerges from these competing narratives is a deal taking shape in layers: first, a ceasefire and the reopening of a crucial economic artery; second, sanctions relief and unfrozen assets; and third, deferred but promised negotiations on the nuclear program itself. Whether that sequence can hold, and whether the nuclear talks will yield the guarantees Israel and the West demand, remains the unresolved tension beneath the cautious optimism.
Citas Notables
Nuclear negotiations are highly technical matters that cannot be resolved in 72 hours at a negotiating table— Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to the New York Times
Iran rejects the notion that it seeks to build atomic bombs— Iranian officials (no official statement yet)
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why push the nuclear question aside now? Isn't that the real issue?
It is, but it's also the hardest one to solve. Rubio's point is practical—you can't negotiate the technical details of uranium enrichment in a weekend. By separating the ceasefire from the nuclear talks, both sides get something immediate: Iran gets sanctions relief and the strait opens; the U.S. gets a 60-day window to negotiate the nuclear terms seriously.
But doesn't that give Iran time to move material around, to hide things?
That's exactly what Israel is worried about. They want the enrichment facilities dismantled now, not promised later. The gap between what Axios reported and what Tasnim said—whether nuclear commitments are in this draft or not—shows how fragile the trust still is.
So this could fall apart?
Easily. If Iran uses those 60 days to consolidate its nuclear program instead of negotiating in good faith, the whole thing collapses. If Israel decides the terms aren't strict enough, they could push Trump to walk away.
What about the strait itself? Is that actually resolvable?
That seems to be the one thing both sides can agree on. Iran gets to keep control but allows traffic through. It's a face-saving compromise—Iran doesn't lose sovereignty, but the global economy gets the oil it needs. That's why it's front and center in this draft.
And the frozen assets?
That's the carrot. Release some of Iran's money, let them sell oil again, and suddenly their economy has room to breathe. It's leverage for the nuclear negotiations that come next.