From Threats to Talks: A Critical Moment for Tehran and Washington

The recent peace talks between Iran and the United States demonstrate that both sides are seeking to resolve their bilateral issues diplomatically, fostering hope for peace and stability in the region.

A Fragile Opening for Diplomacy

The Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that these talks were a good start, holding that the negotiations between the two sides will continue after consultations of the delegations with their respective governments. Badr al-Busaidi, the Foreign Minister of Oman, held that the peace talks were “very serious,” emphasizing that both sides would carefully weigh outcomes and implications before taking the next steps. Al-Busaidi’s statement reflects that both sides were serious about the dialogue and neither side wanted a failed negotiation process due to the severe consequences of a potential conflict between Iran and the United States. Therefore, both nations treated this dialogue as a controlled beginning of negotiations between the two sides whose survival is mandatory for regional and global peace.

FM Abbas Araqchi’s statement regarding this session was exceptional, as relations between the two sides remain intense and Washington and Tehran mostly issue harsh statements regarding each other. He also defined a strict boundary for the negotiations, stating that Iran will only discuss its nuclear issue with the US. Moreover, he maintained that “any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure.” Tehran’s insistence on keeping the talks limited only to nuclear issues is due to its clear strategic doctrine. Iran seeks sanctions relief without compromising on its missile program, which poses a significant threat to the Zionist regime in Israel. Moreover, it also does not want any US input on its regional posture and domestic politics.

Diverging Agendas and Red Lines

However, the United States’ expectations from this dialogue are much higher. The Trump administration seeks regime change in Iran. Washington has demonstrated its interest in discussing Iran’s ballistic missile program, human rights issues, and its support for regional armed groups. Nonetheless, international media reports suggest that the first round of talks had no mention of Iran’s missile program. Reports also suggest that Iran insisted that enriching uranium was its right. This suggests that the two sides stuck to the agenda of only discussing Iran’s nuclear program to prevent the negotiation process from collapsing.

However, this also suggests that there exists a difficult path ahead for the two sides due to their conflicting views and ambitions. Washington sees domestic enrichment as a red line, as it could lead to the development of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Tehran views uranium enrichment as its right under international rules and norms, accompanied by its repeated claims of no intention to gain nuclear power.

Sanctions, Leverage, and the Shadow of War

Omani mediators are seeking to create a win-win situation for both nations to make the negotiations successful. However, Iran demands immediate relief from sanctions, especially on the oil and banking sectors, and a significant reduction of US military presence in the Middle East. As of now, tensions between the two sides still continue to escalate. Despite negotiations between the two sides, the United States continues to pressure Iran. US President Donald Trump has recently signed an order to impose tariffs on nations that trade with Iran. This suggests that the US seeks to send a clear message that economic coercion will continue despite diplomatic engagement.

The timing of these sanctions is intended to signal Washington’s negotiating leverage over Tehran. The United States seeks to exert economic pressure on Iran to accept US demands. However, under the current global and regional atmosphere, these sanctions hold significant risk, as Tehran could interpret these sanctions as a way of coercion, which could lead to the failure of diplomacy between the two sides. Therefore, the United States needs to be careful while imposing these economic sanctions during diplomatic sanctions.

The cost of a military conflict between the two sides is significantly high for both sides. In last year’s 12-day war between Iran and Israel, the world saw that Tehran holds extraordinary capabilities to hit US and Israeli military sites in the region. Indeed, the United States has clear military supremacy over Iran. It can also further weaken the already crippled Iranian economy. However, Iran possesses the potential to hit the US and Israel’s regional interests using its missile technology and regional proxies. Therefore, a military confrontation is not in the interest of either side. The Oman negotiations have made the world hopeful for peace and a diplomatic resolution of the Middle Eastern crisis. However, any miscalculation from either side would push the globe into a major catastrophe.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook