EDITORIAL: With the US and Iranian government representatives set to begin talks in Oman today – focused on Iran’s nuclear programme and facilitated by a host nation as an intermediary – considerable uncertainty and confusing signals persist regarding the broader objectives both sides hope to achieve through these negotiations.
While President Donald Trump has described the talks as “direct”, Iran insists they will be held in an indirect format, highlighting a divergence in how each side views the negotiation framework, and suggesting expectations of a major breakthrough should be tempered.
Still, it is worth noting that both countries are sending senior representatives, with the US delegation led by Trump’s envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and Iran represented by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Not surprisingly, Iran’s approach to the talks has been marked by scepticism and suspicion, with Araghchi writing in the Washington Post about a “significant wall of mistrust” and “doubts about the sincerity of intentions”, sentiments hardened by Trump’s repeated threats of military action if the talks collapse.
At the same time, Araghchi has also referred to them as an “opportunity”, signaling Iran’s openness to negotiate if inflammatory rhetoric is toned down and the talks are conducted in good faith.
In fact, given the severe economic crisis it faces, Tehran is likely to be keen for sanctions relief and would also want restoration of its access to the SWIFT money transfer system in a bid to reconnect with the global economy.
However, this will not mean that it would compromise on key red lines – chief among them, a demand for a degree of acceptance of its nuclear programme, which it insists is solely for civilian purposes.
Coming to the US, conflicting reports have cast doubts regarding its intentions heading into the talks. As always, there are fears that Washington may align its approach with Israeli interests, which Iran suspects will aim at completely dismantling its nuclear programme and rolling back its regional influence.
If that proves true, the talks could be seen by Tehran as doomed from the outset. However, there are also signs that Washington may adopt a more restrained approach.
In a recent interview, Witkoff revealed that President Trump in his letter to Iran proposing negotiations had emphasised the need to “clear up the misconceptions” and implement “a verification programme so that nobody worries about weaponisation of … nuclear material”.
While one hopes the latter scenario plays out once the talks begin, the fact remains that such negotiations may never have been necessary had history taken a different turn during President Trump’s first term.
His 2018 decision to withdraw the US from the previous nuclear deal with Iran arguably set the Middle East on a calamitous trajectory. That agreement, the product of tireless negotiations involving former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, the Obama administration, the EU and UN Security Council members, was a major diplomatic breakthrough.
The US withdrawal, along with Trump’s wider Middle East policy, gave Israel unchecked regional influence, pushed Iran further away from the West, undermined Iranian reformists and empowered hardliners in that country.
Ultimately, Trump’s Middle East policy, one could argue, also contributed towards creating the conditions that led to Hamas’ November 2023 action against Israel, and combined with the spinelessness of the Biden presidency, the US has continued to shape the dangerously explosive environment we see today.
One can only hope that the negotiations in Oman yield a different outcome than past efforts, as the world can scarcely afford further escalation of tensions in a violence-wracked region.
Given the clear US tilt towards Israel, however, doubts persist over whether the talks can overcome not just deep mistrust, but also the enduring influence of Israeli interests on American policy.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments