US VP Vance: "Ball in Iran's Court" for Nuclear Deal, Demands "Conclusive Commitment"

US Vice President JD Vance stated that further negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran depend entirely on Tehran's willingness to engage. He emphasized the US requires a "conclusive commitment" from Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Vance revealed the US delegation left recent talks in Pakistan after determining the Iranian team lacked the authority to finalize an agreement. He concluded that while a "grand deal" is possible, the onus is on Iran to take the next step.

Key Points: US VP Vance Puts Onus on Iran for Nuclear Deal Negotiations

  • US demands Iran's conclusive commitment against nukes
  • Iran's delegation lacked authority to finalize deal
  • US team left Pakistan after 21-hour stalemate
  • Vance says a "grand deal" is possible
  • Outcome is "bad news for Iran"
3 min read

"Ball really is in their court": Vice President JD Vance on US-Iran talks

Vice President JD Vance says any Iran nuclear deal depends on Tehran's willingness to commit, noting US team left Pakistan talks after 21 hours.

"The ball really is in their court. - JD Vance"

Washington DC, April 14

US Vice President JD Vance has said that any further negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal depend entirely on Tehran's willingness to engage, reiterating that the onus lies on the Iranian side to move the talks forward, CNN reported.

"It's a question that would be best put to the Iranians because the ball really is in their court," Vance told Fox News' Bret Baier on Monday, as quoted by CNN.

Vice President Vance emphasised that the US requires a "conclusive commitment" from Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon.

"We must have their conclusive commitment not to develop a nuclear weapon. And I think that if the Iranians are willing to meet us there, then this can be a very, very good deal for both countries. If they're not willing to meet us there, that's up to them," he said.

He further noted that the Iranian delegation that participated in recent talks in Pakistan did not have the authority to finalise an agreement, prompting the US team to leave after 21 hours of negotiations.

"I do think that we acquired some knowledge about how the Iranians are negotiating and this is ultimately why we left Pakistan. Because what we figured out is that they were unable, I think the team that was there was unable to cut a deal, and they had to go back to Tehran, either from the supreme leader or somebody else, and actually get approval to the terms that we had set," Vance told Fox News, as quoted by CNN.

While acknowledging that there were some positive developments during the discussions, Vance said that Iran's response did not go far enough to meet US expectations, particularly on critical issues such as the removal of enriched uranium and assurances that Tehran would not pursue nuclear weapons.

"They moved in our direction, which is why I think we would say that we had some good signs, but they didn't move far enough," Vance told Fox News, quoted by CNN, putting the onus on Iran to come back to the table.

"There really is, I think, a grand deal to be had here, but it's up to the Iranians, I think, to take the next step," Vance added.

On Sunday, JD Vance said that no agreement had been reached in talks with Iran, despite hours of negotiations in Pakistan, and that the discussions had reached a stalemate.

He added that while the US delegation would return to the United States, the outcome of the talks was "bad news for Iran" more than for the United States.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
Interesting to see this play out. From an Indian perspective, stability in the Middle East is crucial for our energy security and the safety of our diaspora. Hope both sides find a diplomatic solution. War is not an option for anyone. 🙏
A
Aman W
Sending a delegation that can't make decisions? That's classic diplomatic stonewalling. The US team was right to leave. It shows they're serious. India has also faced similar tactics in some of our negotiations. Time is precious.
S
Sarah B
While I understand the US position, the language feels a bit one-sided. The "bad news for Iran" comment is unnecessarily provocative. Diplomacy requires patience and sometimes a softer public stance to allow the other side room to maneuver. Just my two cents.
K
Karthik V
This is a high-stakes game. For India, a non-nuclear Iran is ideal, but we also have historical and economic ties with Tehran. Our foreign policy has to walk a very fine line. Not an easy position to be in.
N
Nikhil C
The part about them having to go back to the "supreme leader" for approval says it all. How can you negotiate in good faith if your team lacks authority? The US should hold firm. JCPOA 2.0 needs to be much stronger.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50