Iran and the US completed a successful opening round of indirect talks in Oman designed to prevent the weaponisation of Iran’s nuclear programme. In a sign the talks over a joint agenda had gone well, they agreed to meet again on 19 April.
A breakdown would have come if Donald Trump had demanded the complete dismantling of Iran’s civil nuclear programme, something that Iran is not prepared to contemplate. Iran insists it is pursuing only a civil nuclear programme, but Donald Trump took the US out of the previous nuclear deal claiming Tehran’s regime was seeking a nuclear weapon.
It appears he is resolved to pursue an updated version of the deal.
The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the talks had been “constructive”, and held in a “calm and respectful environment” with “no sharp words exchanged”.
“Both sides don’t want to talk for sake of talking and wasting time, and want to reach a deal as quickly as possible. Both sides showed commitment to take these talks forward until we reach a favourable deal,” he added.
Oman’s foreign minister acted as the mediator in the talks in Muscat, shuttling between Araghchi and Trump’s diplomatic envoy Steve Witkoff.
Witkoff has admitted he does not have technical expertise about civil nuclear disarmament programmes, but Trump implicitly trusts his judgment.
Witkoff also said the discussions had been held in a positive and constructive atmosphere. It is likely the next set of talks will not be held in Muscat, but Oman will retain the role of shuttling between the two negotiating teams in separate rooms.
It is understood that the two diplomats did have a brief exchange at the end of the process, but it was described as not a fully fledged negotiation.
An Iranian condition for the talks was there would be no direct talks with the US while Iran is under US economic sanctions.
But what was more important to the Iranian side was whether Witkoff would demand Iran stop uranium enrichment altogether and end its civil nuclear programme. There was also concern Trump might table demands that Iran stop backing militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Witkoff mapped out an agenda apparently similar to the intent behind the 2015 nuclear deal, but that will also have to address the fact that since 2018 Iran has amassed a large stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, a purity greater than what is required for a civil nuclear programme.
The next round of talks will have to agree how to dispense with this stockpile and how Iran will allow the reintroduction of an independent inspection regime. The UN nuclear weapon inspectorate, the IAEA, has seen its cameras switched off in Iran’s key nuclear sites on successive occasions, making it next to impossible to know what Iran is producing.
Rafael Grossi, the IAEA director general, is due in Iran next week, but it is not clear whether he is yet working in tandem with the small and relatively inexperienced US negotiating team.
Oman’s foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi, said he was proud to have hosted the talks in Muscat and to have mediated. He said the goal was “a process of dialogue and negotiations with the shared aim of concluding a fair and binding agreement.”
“I would like to thank my two colleagues for this engagement which took place in a friendly atmosphere conducive to bridging viewpoints and ultimately achieving regional and global peace, security and stability. We will continue to work together and put further efforts to assist in arriving at this goal,” he added.
Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said “the outcome signals progress. A likely framework is likely now on the table, centred on no weaponisation and sanctions relief.”
Toosi added: “Both sides were likely to sound positive today – even with talks focused on format and agenda – because they currently need the negotiations to continue.
“But without real progress, this dynamic – sustainable in past talks – is unlikely to hold as long this time.”
Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, said the parties had cleared a low bar today.
He said: “Now, it is important for both the US and Iran to insulate the apparent positive environment of negotiations from those who want to sabotage a move toward a deal.
“Each side should exercise restraint. For the US, this could mean dialling back the military threats. President Trump will also have to make sure that Israel does not go behind the administration’s back and undertake provocative steps that could derail negotiations, including sabotage, as we saw in 2021.
“For Iran, signalling more openness to direct negotiations and ceasing warnings of weaponisation options can help build momentum toward and put a breakthrough in reach.”
With the Iranian economy in freefall, and Iranians suffering energy blackouts, the country’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has always favoured talks with the US as the way to escape “the cage of sanctions”, but he has faced resistance from parliamentary hardliners and parts of the group around the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On 7 February, Khamenei said experience showed it was “not rational, intelligent or honourable” to hold talks with Trump, a judgment that Pezeshkian said he had no option but to accept.
But the Iranian foreign ministry – supportive of talks – persuaded Khamenei that his regime, already weakened by reverses in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, might crumble unless he negotiated. Trump also threatened to give Israel the freedom to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites.
To preserve Iran’s dignity, Khamenei insisted the initial talks at least be indirect, but there will be pressure from the US side to allow direct talks. The two countries broke off formal diplomatic relations after the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Pezeshkian, in an effort to talk Trump’s transactional language, said this week: “His excellency [Khamenei] has no opposition to investment by American investors in Iran. American investors: come and invest.”
Trump, too, has relented both in his rhetoric and possibly his demands, saying on Friday: “I’m not asking for much; they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” adding: “I want them to thrive. I want Iran to be a great, wonderful, happy country.” Trump and Witkoff also badly need a diplomatic breakthrough since their peace efforts in Gaza and Ukraine have so far been abject flops. A further war in the Middle East is fiercely resisted by the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia.
Netanyahu said this week that a deal would only work if Iran’s nuclear facilities were blown up, “under American supervision with American execution”. He also called for a “Libya-style agreement”, a reference to Muammar Gaddafi’s voluntary dismantlement of his nuclear programme under international supervision. But Iran senses that Netanyahu is losing influence with Trump over the nuclear file.
Iran’s deputy foreign minister for political affairs, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, who is involved in parallel talks with European leaders, said: “If the American side does not raise irrelevant issues and demands and puts aside threats and intimidation, there is a good possibility of reaching an agreement. The Islamic republic of Iran believes in dialogue and interaction based on mutual respect, and any bullying and coercion is unacceptable in our view.”
Araghchi, a veteran of the 2015 talks who holds a PhD in political thought from the University of Kent, is accompanied by a technical team.
Iran, which has a reputation for being an exhaustive and exhausting negotiator, knows it is working against a deadline of two months, European officials say, because the UK, Germany and France must signal by the end of July whether they will reimpose punishing UN sanctions against Tehran. The option to reimpose those sanctions, which were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, will expire on 18 October.
