(SeaPRwire) –   As a second round of discussions between the U.S. and Iran’s government regarding its illegal nuclear weapons initiatives is anticipated this week, prominent experts on Tehran’s program assert the Trump administration made the correct decision by withdrawing.

Following almost a full day of discussions, Vice President JD Vance’s delegation terminated the negotiations held in Pakistan, a move that was met with approval by specialists in the domain.

“The American team acted prudently by withdrawing when it became evident that the Iranians would not consent to Washington’s fundamental nuclear requirements. Tehran’s retention of enriched uranium stockpiles and uranium enrichment capacities offers it a direct route to nuclear weaponry, unequivocally,” Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ nonproliferation program, informed Digital.

A central point of contention between the U.S. and Iran revolves around Tehran’s ambition to enrich uranium — the substance utilized in constructing nuclear weapons.

President Donald Trump pulled out of President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, as his administration contended that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the official title of the accord, allowed Iran to develop an atomic bomb.

When questioned about the characteristics of an effective nuclear agreement, Stricker stated, “A sound deal necessitates the regime not only surrendering its nuclear fuel, decommissioning crucial facilities, and pledging to a perpetual prohibition on enrichment, but also collaborating with an IAEA inquiry that thoroughly and entirely inventories and disassembles Iran’s nuclear weapons-related facilities, equipment, documentation, centrifuges, and associated production capacities.”

Stricker conceded that this undertaking might span several years, yet highlighted that “the IAEA is adequately prepared for this task and possesses expertise in dismantling nuclear weapons programs in Iraq, Libya, and South Africa. Any lesser approach would likely result in Iran reneging on its pledges and re-establishing a pathway to breakout.”

Senator Lindsey Graham declared on Monday his opposition to a reported American proposal for a two-decade prohibition on Iran’s uranium enrichment as part of a prospective agreement.

“I commend President Donald Trump’s determination to resolve the Iranian conflict peacefully and diplomatically. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind the nature of those we are engaging with in Iran: terrorists, deceivers, and fraudsters,” Graham shared on X.

“Should this report prove accurate, the notion of us consenting to a moratorium on enrichment instead of an outright ban would, in my opinion, be an error,” he remarked.

“Would we sanction a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? Absolutely not.”

A Middle Eastern regional official verified to Digital that the U.S. proposed a 20-year suspension of enriched uranium activities, which was subsequently declined by the Islamic Republic.

David Albright, a physicist and the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C., commended the American choice to conclude the discussions in Pakistan. On his X account, which is closely monitored by those observing Iran, he posted: “The U.S. Acted Correctly by Withdrawing in Islamabad.”

Albright informed Digital that the action taken by the U.S. negotiators “demonstrates that these are not talks merely for the sake of talking. And the withdrawal put Iran on the defensive, indicating its position as the losing party in the conflict. Furthermore, the Iranians would not have altered their stances substantially. They typically lack adaptability. However, Iran desired the continuation of negotiations to attempt to constrain the U.S. and Israel, while simultaneously endeavoring to present themselves as triumphant. Now, Iran must determine whether to accept the American proposal or face the possibility of renewed conflict.”

He further stated that an advantageous nuclear agreement for the U.S. would entail “no enrichment and no reserves of HEU [Highly Enriched Uranium] and LEU [Low Enriched Uranium]; Iran collaborating with inspectors, demonstrably terminating its nuclear weapons program, and furnishing a comprehensive nuclear declaration, an action it has never undertaken.”

Albright proceeded by saying that “If Iran indicates a readiness to embrace the U.S. stance, reconvening discussions would be logical.”

“Iran possesses absolutely no requirement for enrichment. Its sole civilian necessity is for a modest quantity of 20% enriched material for its compact research reactor, the Tehran Research Reactor, and it already holds sufficient 20% enriched uranium, either as fuel or nearly converted into fuel, stored in Iran and Russia under JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] provisions for two decades.”

He concluded, “To be facetious, and to echo Abbie Hoffman, I have the right to shout ‘theater’ in a crowded fire, but I refrain. Iran’s insistence on its right to enrich is equally immaterial and beside the issue.”