From writing each other letters to quite literally pulling out the big guns, the U.S. and Iran have tried it all. Now, after years of distrust and stalled diplomacy, they return to the negotiating table, engaging cautiously, indirectly, and with just enough momentum for it to matter.
As the world watched closely, the first round in Muscat concluded almost anti-climatically, with no major breakdowns or breakthroughs – and in this case, it marked a rare moment of calm and relief in the escalating standoff between Iran and the U.S.
However, Muscat was just the warm-up. The two sides meet again in Rome on April 19 for a second round of indirect negotiations, also mediated by Oman. But this time, the stakes are higher and the need for a deal is more urgent.
Here’s a roundup of what has happened and what lies ahead.
Round 1: Muscat, Oman
On April 12, representatives of the U.S. and Iran made their way to Muscat to hold the much-awaited negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Despite Trump’s insistence that the talks would be direct, the negotiations were conducted indirectly, with representatives of both countries sitting in separate rooms and Oman relaying messages between them.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi led the Iranian delegation while U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff represented American interests. Facilitating the back-and-forth communication between them was Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi.
Not much is known about what happened in Muscat, but a recent report by an Iranian outlet revealed that Iran’s Araqchi proposed a three-stage deal during the discussions, where Iran would cap its nuclear enrichment in exchange for the U.S. lifting sanctions.
Iran proposed to temporarily reduce its uranium enrichment levels to 3.67% in the first stage of the three-phase deal. In exchange, they would get access to the financial assets frozen by the U.S., and permission to export its oil. In the second stage, Iran would put a permanent end to its high-level enrichment and restore all IAEA inspections, provided the U.S. further lifts some sanctions and also prevents Britain, Germany and France from triggering the snapback of UN sanctions.
The snapback mechanism is a failsafe mechanism built into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It allows for a swift return of previously terminated sanctions if Iran veers off course. As Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018, the trigger for these sanctions now rests with the European nations, who will act in coordination with Washington.
As part of the second phase, Iran also proposed agreeing to implement Additional Protocol, an additional safeguard of the IAEA, that allows the inspectors to go from accountants to detectives. It demands states to declare a wider range of activities that could lead to nuclear developments and also provides IAEA more access to verify those declarations. Tehran’s compliance with this protocol ended in February 2021.
In the final stage of the proposed plan, the U.S. Congress would approve the Iran-U.S. agreement and lift all primary and secondary sanctions, and Iran would move its highly enriched uranium stockpile to a third country.
According to sources cited by Iran International, Witkoff initially responded positively to Iran’s proposal, but since then, Washington has hardened its position on what it expects from the agreement.
What do both sides want?
It took months for Iran and the U.S. to agree to these indirect talks, yet, this was the easy part. During the first meeting, both parties were on their best behaviour, however, the real task lies ahead- negotiations.
Iran’s Araqchi, who travelled to Moscow one day before the second round of negotiations was set to begin, stated that a deal with Washington is possible, “if they demonstrate seriousness of intent and do not make unrealistic demands.”
However, there seems to be some confusion within the U.S. about what they expect from these dealings.
Shortly after the meeting in Oman, Witkoff appeared on a Fox TV interview where he said the U.S. is looking to limit Iran’s nuclear program as opposed to destroying it. This statement echoed the terms of the U.S. deal under the Obama administration, the same one Trump withdrew the U.S. from in 2018 with the promise of a better deal.
Shortly after, he made another statement on social media platform X saying the goal was not to cap the nuclear enrichment but to dismantle the program entirely.
“Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program. It is imperative for the world that we create a tough, fair deal that will endure, and that is what President Trump has asked me to do,” he said.
These are all red lines for Iran. Tehran has refused to dismantle its uranium enrichment centrifuges or halt enrichment entirely, Additionally, it also views discussions on its missile program outside the scope of any nuclear deal.
The shifty American stance on the expectations from the deal has created some ambiguities, Iran said, which would need to be discussed in the upcoming meeting.
“Given the contradictory positions we have heard from various U.S. officials over the past few days, we expect the U.S. side to first provide an explanation in this regard and to remove the serious ambiguities that have arisen regarding its intentions and seriousness,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told state media.
What lies ahead?
Iran’s economic crisis is deepening under Washington’s policy of “maximum pressure”. The Iranian Rial continues to hit record lows week after week as inflation peaks, putting immense pressure on the domestic population to make ends meet. Amidst all this, the American sanctions on Iranian oil exports are compounding the already spiralling economic problems. As daily life becomes unaffordable, discontent simmers at home. Amidst all this, the possibility of an Israeli-U.S. joint strike looms large. If the U.S. were to attack Iran, it would plunge the region into an all-out war, that would worsen the Iranian economy, and spark domestic unrest, ultimately threatening Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime.
This risk, reportedly, was conveyed to Iran’s supreme leader by the country’s president, and parliamentary and judiciary leaders in a long, closed-door meeting prompting a rare shift in his hardline stance against negotiating with the U.S.
For its part, the U.S. had made it clear – that it will not stand for a nuclear Iran but, despite Trump repeatedly threatening military action, he is not quite ready for an all-out war yet. A recent report by the New York Times revealed that Trump dismissed an Israeli proposal to carry out joint strikes on Iran’s nuclear program and instead opted for diplomacy.
Trump wants a deal with Iran, and not just any deal, one that’s better than what his predecessor cracked. The current U.S. president had famously accused the Obama team of doing a bad job with the initial deal in 2015 and promised that he could crack one that’s better for the U.S. while being tougher on Iran. So, the pressure on his administration to negotiate a deal that justifies the walkout of the JCPOA and matches Trump’s rhetoric is stronger than ever.
But the West is running out of time. According to their analyses, Iran is much closer to a nuclear weapon today than they were in 2015, and their stockpiles of enriched uranium are quickly rising, nearing “weapons-grade level.” Some experts believe that if the West does not act quickly or strategically, it could either way push Iran towards a nuclear weapon.
And finally, while Iran may be weakened, it will not absorb an attack from the U.S. passively. In a calculated display of deterrence, Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has periodically showcased its expansive network of underground missile bases and advanced strike capabilities signalling its readiness to respond to any attack on its facilities. So, while both sides gear up for talks and threats, one thing is clear: neither wants or can afford, another war in the Middle East.
