| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Negotiations in Oman: What Iran and the US were able to agree on |
| 2025-04-15 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Kirill Semenov [REGNUM] On April 12, delegations from the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and the United States, led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, concluded the first round of talks in Muscat, mediated by the Sultanate of Oman. The parties assessed the results of the first meeting with cautious optimism. However, against the backdrop of mostly pessimistic expert forecasts preceding the event, one can even speak of a certain success. US President Donald Trump also described the talks as successful. "I think things are going well, the situation with Iran, I think, is pretty good," he said. DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE US AND INDIRECT ONES FOR IRAN In general, the current meeting in Oman can be characterized as "negotiations about negotiations" - the parties are only trying to feel out each other's positions and moods, as well as compare topics that can be discussed. First of all, it is necessary to decide what exactly should be on the negotiating table and what should be negotiated, since all previous statements and comments showed a wide range of what the US and Iran can declare and even present to each other. In particular, Araghchi, after leaving Muscat, said: “Today we came very close to the basis of the negotiations” and made it clear that the upcoming session, scheduled to be held in a week, will focus on discussing the agenda of the negotiations with an appropriate schedule. It is also significant that the US and Iranian delegations gathered at the same hotel in Muscat but were in separate rooms while Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi relayed messages between them. As Abbas Araghchi told Iranian media, a total of four rounds of exchange of opinions took place over the course of two and a half hours. This format of the negotiators' placement allowed each side to maintain its own opinion on the format of the meeting. From the Americans' point of view, these were direct contacts. The Iranians still considered them indirect. It was essential for Iran to show that Tehran still views the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal during his last term and the imposition of new rounds of illegal sanctions as a treacherous and hostile act against the Islamic Republic. Therefore, for direct negotiations to be possible, the Iranian side had to be convinced of Washington’s constructive approach and its rejection of the language of ultimatums and demands for unilateral concessions from Iran. Now, as the Iranian Mehr News writes, the American delegation demonstrated that same “constructive” approach, and the negotiations took place in a “positive atmosphere” and will therefore continue next week. In turn, it was important for the US to declare these contacts direct. The Trump administration urgently needs to demonstrate at least some successes in its “100 days,” and in this case, direct negotiations with Iran can be presented as such. What added significance to this American point of view was the fact that as the two sides were leaving the hotel, they met face to face. Abbas Araghchi personally exchanged pleasantries with his American counterpart Steve Witkoff in the presence of Badr bin Hamad. At the same time, the Iranian minister stressed that the “meeting at the door” was “accidental.” JUST THE NUCLEAR DOSSIER AND NOTHING MORE The topic of what the next rounds of negotiations might be about takes us back to Whitkoff's statements on March 21. At the time, the special envoy stated bluntly that the United States was seeking a “verification program” to ensure that Iran’s nuclear energy program was not being used for military purposes. Tehran had also expressed readiness for such an agreement. However, Whitkoff's position was later contradicted by other US administration officials, who called for dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure, as happened in Libya. Naturally, such a scenario was considered humiliating and unacceptable for the Islamic Republic. After that, threats of force rained down on Tehran. At the same time, the current relatively successful outcome of the first round of consultations suggests that Witkoff, with the support of Vice President J.D. Vance (who are considered the main “pragmatists” regarding Iran), managed to overcome the resistance of the “hawks” and the pro-Israel lobby and convince Donald Trump to accept their approach. Therefore, the exchanges of messages in Muscat concerned exclusively the “nuclear dossier”. It should be especially emphasized that the US delegation did not put forward demands regarding Iran’s missile program and the end of support for the “axis of resistance” groups, which had been voiced earlier. The United States has already made some concessions to begin negotiations, and Trump is willing to sign a short-term, interim nuclear deal based on "good faith" with "virtually no formal monitoring mechanisms," CNN reports. This was also perceived by the Iranian side as a "constructive approach", so it cannot be ruled out that at the next stage Iran and the US will agree to direct negotiations. They can take place either in Oman or in one of the European countries. Perhaps the US and Iran want to see how the Europeans would gradually begin to join the process of developing a new deal. Regarding its possible parameters, the announced Iranian proposals included: easing sanctions, including pressure on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil; unblocking access to Iranian billions of dollars frozen abroad, as well as Iran retaining the ability to work on a peaceful nuclear program. In exchange, Iran is willing to return to the terms of the 2015 deal, which Trump abandoned during his first term, regarding uranium enrichment levels. According to other sources, in addition to the above positions, Iran has proposed to the United States the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East, which should include a corresponding renunciation by Israel of nuclear weapons and related research. ISRAEL VS. For Iran, it was also important in the current negotiations to achieve respectful attitude of the United States towards the Islamic Republic. This is a matter of international prestige of the IRI. Iran is extremely negative about the refusal of the UN Security Council and leading states to condemn Trump for unilaterally withdrawing from the deal and moving towards a policy of confrontation with Iran, the most obvious example of which was the assassination of one of the leading military commanders of the IRGC, Qasem Soleimani. Therefore, although Tehran was ready for dialogue with Washington, it was only on an equal footing. At the same time, despite this, not everyone in Iran believes in the sincerity of the US desire to conclude a new deal. As a well-informed Iranian source, who wished to remain anonymous, told Regnum, "experience shows that the Americans do not want an agreement" and the "hawks" will be able to convince Trump of their rightness again. Also, according to the Iranian official, Israel's position is causing concern in Tehran. It is clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not accept a deal pushed by American pragmatists that would leave Iran with its ballistic missiles as a threat to Israel. For the radical Zionist government, only a massive strike capable of disabling all Iranian weapons systems aimed at Tel Aviv would be considered acceptable. Therefore, Iran expects any provocations from Israel. It is also clear from the comments of Israeli analysts and experts that the current situation in the Middle East is starting to turn against Israel. And President Trump has apparently found the strength to rein in Netanyahu, accept the US-Iran negotiations as a given, and come to terms with it. This was most likely what was discussed during the negotiations between the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister during the latter’s visit to Washington on April 8, but the delicate nature of this dialogue forced it to be left outside the announced information agenda. In particular, Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said that Israel believes that the time has come to act. Especially after Iran carried out a series of direct strikes on Israel in 2024. "Israel does not see any more room for negotiations,” Diker told The Media Line. In his opinion, the current diplomatic track with the Islamic Republic of Iran is a continuation of the long-standing war of deception waged by Iran. The Israeli believes the Iranians are too happy to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States, as they did under Obama. "Israelis are deeply skeptical that diplomacy can succeed, especially if the outcome is similar to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal," said Danny Cytrynovich, a research fellow in the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. He stressed that Israel could be cornered if the new deal does not substantially dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In this regard, a representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who wished to remain anonymous, drew the attention of the Regnum news agency to the fact that in these conditions the position of Russia and China takes on a special role. Their job is to continue to convince the Americans that now is a good time to restore the deal and lift sanctions, in defiance of pressure from Israel, which is sure to continue. " Iran's policy on the nuclear program is clear. We have given and can give guarantees that our program is peaceful and will be peaceful, and we are confident that there is no reason to think otherwise," the Iranian emphasized. *** If the Trump administration has indeed adopted a solutions-oriented approach to limiting and more closely monitoring Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, then significant progress is likely to be possible in the future. At the moment, the risk of a military clash between Iran and the US has significantly decreased, although Israeli provocations are still possible. But for now, it seems that Tel Aviv has no leverage to turn the situation in its favor. Unilateral strikes on Iran could enrage Trump personally, from whom any unpredictable consequences can be expected, and this is an extremely high risk for Netanyahu. In a letter the US president sent to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month, Trump set a clear two-month deadline to reach an understanding. It is unclear what will happen if the parties fail to reach an agreement in two months, and whether the US position will change from benevolent to confrontational again. Moreover, we do not yet know what proposals the Americans will make regarding Iran’s nuclear program and how much they will differ from the Iranian ones. On the other hand, many observers interpret the two-month stance to mean that the US is not necessarily pushing for an immediate comprehensive agreement that would end the decades-long dispute, but would potentially open the way to temporary measures that could buy time for further diplomacy. |
| Posted by:badanov |