The announcement of planned talks between the US and Iran in Oman signifies an important improvement – particularly given the historical past of mistrust and animosity that has characterised their interactions.
There stays a level of confusion as as to if the negotiations over Iran’s improvement of a nuclear capability can be direct or oblique. The US has stated that its Center East envoy, Steve Witkoff, will meet Iran’s overseas minister, Abbas Araghchi. Donald Trump has publicly said that Iran can be in “great danger” if the negotiations fail.
Iran in the meantime has stated that talks can be carried out through an intermediary. Araghchi commented that: “It’s as a lot a chance as it’s a take a look at. The ball is in America’s court docket.”
This seeming conflict in messaging earlier than the talks have even begun isn’t the best omen for his or her success, even with the specter of US or Israeli navy motion hovering over Iran. Representatives from Iran, China and Russia are reported to have met in Moscow on April 8.
China’s overseas ministry released a statement reminding the world that it was the US “which unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA [the 2015 nuclear deal or joint comprehensive plan of action] and precipitated the present state of affairs”. It careworn the necessity for Washington to “present political sincerity, act within the spirit of mutual respect, interact in dialogue and session, and cease the specter of drive and most strain”.
This adopted messaging from Washington which very a lot targeted on the opportunity of drive and most strain. Chatting with the press after assembly the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump struck a very aggressive note, saying: “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon and if the talks aren’t profitable, I truly assume will probably be a really dangerous day for Iran if that’s the case.”
The US president’s a lot mentioned transactional approach to diplomacy – as represented on the talks by Witkoff, a former real-estate developer – is probably going be pivotal to how negotiations proceed. Trump’s geopolitical ambitions within the Center East focus on expanding the Abraham accords. These agreements targeted on normalising relations between Israel and varied Arab international locations – together with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan.
The signing of the accords in 2020 have been seen as a key overseas coverage achievement of Trump’s first administration, significantly when it comes to America’s need to counter Iran within the area.
The US is now actively working to deliver Saudi Arabia into the fold. In that respect, recognising that Riyadh’s participation would mark a transformative shift in regional geopolitics. Moreover, Trump goals to leverage commerce agreements and main funding initiatives to create financial dependencies that encourage diplomatic normalisation.
Iran, in the meantime, faces severe economic difficulties. The nation’s financial system is in a state of disaster, with excessive inflation, a depreciating forex and widespread poverty. These situations have been worsened by worldwide sanctions and home coverage failures. Consequently, Iran is in dire want of financial concessions, which could possibly be a big level of leverage for the US.
Tehran’s geopolitical clout has weakened considerably over the previous 18 months. Army setbacks in 2024 – together with the lack of key allies and leaders in teams corresponding to Hamas and Hezbollah – have diminished Iran’s capacity to undertaking energy in its area.
This weakened place will have an effect on Iran’s negotiating stance. It might make it extra probably that Iran’s negotiators would possibly search financial aid and diplomatic options moderately than pursuing aggressive insurance policies. However strain from hardliners inside Iran might push the nation in direction of a extra radical strategy if concessions will not be forthcoming.
Rocky highway forward
A serious difficulty affecting the talks is the low level of trust between the 2 events. The US’s involvement within the Gaza battle – together with Trump’s controversial proposal to clear Gaza of Palestinians to make method for attainable redevelopment – has additional strained relations. So has the latest US marketing campaign in opposition to the Tehran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Additional threats of this sort are prone to be seen by Iran as aggressive and coercive – and Trump’s newest rhetoric received’t have helped. This can inevitably undermine the prospects for belief between the events.
Iran’s scepticism is rooted in previous experiences the place guarantees of financial aid weren’t fulfilled. Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018 is a living proof. This perceived breach of belief has made Iran cautious about coming into into new agreements with out concrete assurances.
The regional context provides one other layer of complexity to the talks. American assist for Israel’s actions in Gaza is prone to complicate matters. The populations of most Gulf states are totally supportive of Palestinian self-determination and are scandalised on the method the US president has seemingly given the inexperienced gentle to Israel’s breach of the ceasefire and resumption of hostilities.
Iran’s inner politics are additionally prone to play an essential position in shaping its strategy to the negotiations. The nation is experiencing important political polarisation between the “hardliners”, spearheaded by the supreme chief Ali Khamenei, and the “reformists”, who’re comparatively extra conciliatory in direction of the US and Europe. Following the shock election of Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist, final yr, hopes that Iran could be open to negotiations with Washington rapidly faltered when he realigned his position with Khamenei’s.
In March 2025, he lost two important reformists in the cabinet, the financial system minister, Abdolnaser Hemmati, and vice-president, Mohammad Javad Zarif, pressured out by the hardliner-dominated parliament. This factional politicking will complicate Iran’s capacity to current a unified entrance in negotiations — and this might signify important leverage for the US. But it surely additionally strengthens hardliners to make calls for which might be unacceptable to the US.
