UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach

UK security adviser ‘attended’ US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach | US-Israel war on Iran | The Guardian Skip to main content Skip to navigation Skip to navigation Powell’s presence at the talks, and his personal close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Powell’s presence at the talks, and his personal close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images US-Israel war on Iran UK security adviser ‘attended’ US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say Middle East crisis – live updates Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger Tue 17 Mar 2026 14.20 CET Last modified on Wed 18 Mar 2026 22.21 CET Share Prefer the Guardian on Google Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell , attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal. Powell thought progress had been made in Geneva in late February and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources. Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, the US and Israel launched the attack on Iran. Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny, Geneva, acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues. View image in fullscreen Oman’s foreign minister, Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, right, holding a meeting with Steve Witkoff, centre, and Jared Kushner in Geneva on 26 February. Photograph: AP Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors. Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.” A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team. “The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.” That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier. Powell’s attendance at the Geneva talks, as well as at a previous set of meetings earlier in the month in the Swiss city, helps in part to explain the UK government’s reluctance to back the US attack on Iran, a reluctance that has put the UK-US relationship under unprecedented strain. The UK saw no compelling evidence of an imminent threat of an Iranian missile attack on Europe, or of Iran securing a nuclear weapon. This is the first time it has become clear that Britain was so closely involved in the talks, and so had good reason to decide whether diplomatic options had been exhausted and a US attack was necessary. Instead the UK regarded the attack as unlawful and premature since Powell believed the path remained open to a negotiated solution to the long-running issue of how Iran could reassure the US that it was not seeking a nuclear weapon. Downing Street declined to comment on Powell’s presence at the Geneva talks or his view of them [see footnote]. Get in touch Contact us about this story The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject, you can contact us confidentially using the following methods: Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it ( iOS / Android ) and go to the menu. Select ‘Secure Messaging’. SecureDrop If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform. Our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each. Show more Keir Starmer has been repeatedly lambasted by Trump for not doing more to support the US attack, including by initially refusing to let America use British military bases, and only allowing them to be used later for defensive purposes after Iran started attacking UK Gulf allies. Trump has warned it could be bad for Nato if its European member states do not answer his call to help open the strait of Hormuz, a demand that has been declined. The indirect talks in Geneva between Iran and the US were being mediated by Oman’s foreign minister, Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi. Gulf diplomats did not specify on what basis Powell had been given access to the talks, but it may reflect the relationship he has managed to build with the US over the years, including previously as chief of staff to Tony Blair. UK officials have subsequently explained they were impressed that Iran was prepared for the deal to be permanent and, unlike the 2015 nuclear agreement, would not have cut-off dates, or sunset clauses ending the restrictions on its programme. Iran had also agreed to down-blend the 440kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium under the supervision of the IAEA inside Iran. It agreed no stockpiles of highly enriched uranium would be built up in the future. In the final session of the talks, Iran agreed to a three- to-five-year pause on domestic enrichment, but the US in the afternoon session, after consultations with Trump, demanded a 10-year pause. In practice, Iran had no means to enrich domestically because of the bombing of its enrichment plants in 2025. Iran had also made an offer of what the mediators described as an economic bonanza, with the US being given the chance to participate in a future civil nuclear programme. In return, nearly 80% of the economic sanctions on Iran would have been lifted, including assets frozen in Qatar, a demand Iran made in the 2025 talks. The Oman mediator believed the offer of zero stockpiling of highly enriched uranium was a breakthrough that meant an agreement was within reach. Accounts differ on whether Kushner left the talks giving the impression Trump would welcome what had been agreed, or that the US negotiators knew it would take something massive to persuade Trump that war was not the best option. One Gulf diplomat with knowledge of the talks said: “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.” The Guardian’s report that Powell was present during the talks was cited in parliament on Tuesday by Liz Saville Roberts, an MP for the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party, during an update by Britain’s foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper. “It appears diplomatic options were still viable and there was no evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Saville Roberts told Cooper. “Does she therefore believe a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time and, if so, surely that means that the initial US and Israeli strikes were premature and illegal?” Cooper responded: “The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions. “We did think that was an important track and we did want it to continue. That is one of the reasons for the position we took on the initial US strikes that took place.” Explore more on these topics US-Israel war on Iran Jonathan Powell Foreign policy US foreign policy Iran Jared Kushner Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content More on this story More on this story Middle East war: why attacks on gasfields like South Pars are a major escalation With few good strategic options, Iran’s best prospect may be to retaliate while it can Canada in push for joint G7 and Middle East effort to de-escalate Iran war UK says it remains in talks over escorting ships through strait of Hormuz ‘The most bitter news’: Iran reels as more than 100 children reportedly killed in school bombing US and Israel’s strategy to kill Iran’s top figures may prove counterproductive A visual guide to the US-Israeli war on Iran and Tehran’s response Iran threatens Gulf energy facilities after Israeli attack on its largest gasfield Iran vows ‘no leniency’ as it launches reprisal attacks on Israel and US air bases Cathay Pacific suspends flights to and from Dubai until end of April – as it happened Most viewed Most viewed World Europe US news Americas Asia Australia Middle East Africa Inequality Global development