Among the more striking elements of Iran’s current negotiating position is its offer of a non-aggression pact — not just with the United States, but potentially with Israel as well. This proposal, included alongside a broader “prosperity package,” suggests that Tehran sees the nuclear talks as an opening to pursue a far more sweeping diplomatic realignment.
The nuclear component of the talks in Geneva focused on familiar ground: Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium stockpile, IAEA inspection access, and enrichment timelines. Iran’s foreign minister described the session as “more constructive” than the first round and said both sides had agreed on guiding principles. A third round is expected in about two weeks.
But the non-aggression proposal, if taken seriously by Washington, could reshape the entire framework of the negotiations. Such a pact would require both sides to formally commit to not attacking each other — a significant step given the history of covert operations, proxy conflicts, and direct military exchanges that have characterized the relationship for decades.
Whether the US has any interest in this broader offer remains unclear. Washington has not publicly commented on it, and the Trump administration’s posture toward Iran has been marked by contradictory signals: military buildup in the Gulf on one hand, expressed desire for a deal on the other. The president has at various points suggested the best outcome would be a change in Iran’s leadership, which is a fundamentally different goal than a mutual non-aggression agreement.
Iran’s inclusion of a prosperity package and non-aggression framework may be a negotiating tactic — an attempt to make the overall deal appear generous enough to overcome Washington’s insistence on full enrichment renunciation. Alternatively, it may reflect a genuine Iranian desire for a broader strategic accommodation that could end decades of confrontation.