“If the US insists on addressing all the issues simultaneously,” Hakan Fidan told the Financial Times, referring to Iran’s missile arsenal and support for militant groups, “I’m afraid even the nuclear file will not move forward … the result could be another war in the region.”
Fidan’s remarks come as the United States maintains that any durable deal with Tehran must go beyond uranium enrichment to include limits on ballistic missiles and an end to support for armed groups across the Middle East.
President Donald Trump repeated that position after hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Wednesday, where the two leaders discussed Iran and agreed that the scope of any agreement is a critical issue.
Iranian officials, by contrast, have repeatedly said negotiations should focus solely on the nuclear dossier. Tehran has rejected any discussion of its missile program, which it describes as non-negotiable, and has defended its regional alliances.
Fidan, who has been involved in mediation efforts aimed at preventing a wider conflict, said there were signs of flexibility on both sides regarding enrichment.
“It is positive that the Americans appear willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment within clearly set boundaries,” he said.
“The Iranians now recognize that they need to reach a deal with the Americans, and the Americans understand that the Iranians have certain limits. It’s pointless to try to force them.”
He added that he believed Tehran “genuinely wants to reach a real agreement” and could accept restrictions on enrichment levels and a strict inspections regime, similar to the 2015 nuclear accord.
That agreement capped enrichment at 3.67 percent and sharply limited Iran’s stockpile. However, it did not address missiles or Iran’s support for regional proxies, omissions that critics in Israel and the Persian Gulf have long argued allowed Tehran to expand its military reach.
The renewed diplomacy follows indirect talks in Muscat last week between US envoys and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, facilitated by regional states including Turkey, Qatar and Oman. Both sides described the discussions as a positive first step, though officials have cautioned that major obstacles remain.
Trump’s messaging has at times appeared mixed. While Washington has insisted that missiles and regional activities be part of any final deal, Trump has also said a nuclear-only agreement could be “acceptable” under certain circumstances.
After meeting Netanyahu, he said negotiations would continue “to see whether or not a deal can be consummated,” adding that if not, “we will just have to see what the outcome will be.”
Israel has pushed strongly for Iran’s missile capabilities to be included in negotiations, arguing that they pose a direct and growing threat. Iran, meanwhile, maintains that its missile program is defensive and outside the scope of nuclear talks.
Iran has enough uranium for a dozen bombs
The nuclear file itself remains fraught. Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Wednesday that inspectors have been denied access for months to three key enrichment sites struck during last year’s 12-day war.
He said the agency has a “firm impression” that about 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to just above 60 percent purity, a level close to weapons-grade, remains at the underground facilities.
“The material is there and this material is enough to manufacture a few, maybe a dozen devices,” Grossi said, warning that analysis cannot substitute for physical inspection and that the stockpile carries clear proliferation risks.
President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Wednesday that Iran is willing to open its nuclear sites to “any verification” to prove it is not seeking nuclear weapons, a step that should allow inspectors to assess the damage from the June Israeli and US strikes and account for Iran’s uranium stockpile.
Against that backdrop, Fidan cautioned against attempting to resolve all disputes at once. He argued that while Washington’s primary concern is nuclear capability, “the other issues are closely tied to countries of the region, because missiles and proxies affect regional security.”
He also warned that military action would be unlikely to bring about regime change in Iran. “I don’t think that regime change will occur,” Fidan said, suggesting that while infrastructure and state institutions could be severely damaged, the political system would endure.
