What to expect at upcoming US-Iran talks in Oman
US President Donald Trump's private appeal to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - while publicly threatening all-out war - may now be paying off.
For the first time since a brief attempt in 2021 under former president Joe Biden, the US and Iran will be engaging in supposedly "indirect" talks that could quickly become "direct", depending on whose narrative you accept.
Iran's foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, will lead a delegation to meet Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, in Oman.
Araghchi's presence is considered very high-level, and therefore, "direct", but the Iranians have refused to use that term. Witkoff may be Trump's go-to for the world's biggest crises (amusingly dubbed the "envoy to everything" in Washington) but he is not a cabinet-level official.
Oman is a largely neutral country that practices quiet diplomacy in the Arabian Gulf and has a record of facilitating sensitive talks for western powers.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Iran had previously said it would negotiate nothing while under the "maximum pressure" campaign imposed by the Trump administration. Indeed, the administration is levying new sanctions on Iran-affiliated entities nearly every week, if not more frequently.
But Trump said he was hesitant to sign the maximum pressure memo and has very much indicated he wants to cut his own deal, one with his name on it.
On the other hand, the Iranians 'have an opportunity to get a mutually beneficial deal', Ryan Costello, policy director for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Middle East Eye.
"Iran has, I think, taken pains across the years to signal that they won't be threatened into anything," he added.
"But you look at the totality of what happened under [Trump's first term], Iran didn't actually have all that many great cards to play, and the Iranian economy took a lot of damage... So I think Iran probably is looking to preserve as much options as it possibly can."
While Trump has repeatedly said his sole requirement is that Iran never obtain a nuclear weapon, his press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Friday that "all options are on the table".
" You can agree to President Trump's demand, or there will be all hell to pay," she said.
Long-term outcomes
The Trump administration has been careful not to publicly take the military option off the table while emphasising that they prefer negotiations.
"If the question is whether the US can bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, oh yes, absolutely, they can," Sina Azodi, an expert on Iran's nuclear programme at George Washington University, said on a virtual discussion panel on Friday.
"But in the game of chess, the other side always gets a turn too. So Iranians can always rebuild everything that they have. They have the institutional knowledge, they have the industrial capacity to rebuild everything."
Iran-US tensions: There's no room for further miscalculations Read More »
And that may be why Witkoff has previously spoken more about "verification" measures in terms of Iran's nuclear programme, rather than adopting a maximalist approach, which would drive Tehran away and likely escalate tensions between the two countries.
Iran is currently enriching uranium to the 60 percent threshold, just short of weapons grade, including by using advanced centrifuge designs at the deeply-buried Fordow enrichment facility, a NIAC fact sheet showed.
The programme is not housed at a single facility but "dispersed across Iran, with the most sensitive operations taking place at deeply buried facilities that are difficult to destroy".
With Iran in such a position, it will have a list of demands, the chief of which is access to its restricted assets abroad for its oil exports in recent years. The US can grant it control over its frozen funds.
Tehran will also want to conduct trade with western governments, including the US, a major draw for Trump. Any such transactions are currently blocked by US sanctions on its oil and finance sectors.
NIAC has pointed out that "no US taxpayer money would be sent to Iran under any conceivable scenario".
'Trillion-dollar opportunity'
Three days after Trump made the surprise announcement about the Saturday talks, Iran's foreign minister penned an opinion article for The Washington Post that appealed to the core of foreign policymaking under the Trump administration.
"Many in Washington portray Iran as a closed country from an economic point of view. The truth is that we are open to welcoming businesses from around the world," Araghchi wrote. "It is the US administrations and congressional impediments, not Iran, that have kept American enterprises away from the trillion-dollar opportunity that access to our economy represents."
"To say that the scope for trade and investment in Iran is unparalleled is an understatement," he added.
Araghchi was speaking Trump's language, and the billionaire real-estate mogul made no secret of it in the past.
Alongside Netanyahu, Trump announces direct US talks with Iran Read More »
Nine years ago, on the campaign trail for his first presidential bid, Trump expressed his ire at the Obama-negotiated 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), for not removing the primary sanctions placed on Iran which would allow it to do business with US companies, and more specifically, purchase US weapons.
The JCPOA placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for secondary sanctions relief, which allowed Iran to significantly increase its global oil exports.
"Trump was saying this means that European and Russian and Chinese companies will be able to go in and make money in Iran, but American companies will be kept out," Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on a virtual panel discussion on Friday.
One carve-out in the JCPOA allowed Tehran to cut a deal to purchase 80 US-made Boeing planes.
But then-president Barack Obama "did not want to be accused of trying to use [the deal] for economic purposes", Parsi said.
"And of course, there was a hard red line from the Iranian conservatives at the time who feared that an American entry into the Iranian market would also entail American influence inside of Iran and that that would eventually erode their own control," he added.
Now, with the green light from Khamenei, Iran appears to be open to at least limited investment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Farsi-speaking VOA journalists return to work after lengthy administrative leave amid Iran-Israel escalation
Farsi-speaking journalists with Voice of America were called back to work on Friday amid the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. The US Agency for Global Media in March terminated grants for Voice of America and several other broadcasters as President Donald Trump's administration moved to make major cuts to government spending and the federal workforce. "VOA's role in providing independent, factual and authoritative news has been proven throughout countless times of crisis. But after months off the air, we've lost a lot of audience and credibility," White House bureau chief Patsy Widakuswara said. "They should bring us all back so we can respond to breaking news in all parts of the world." The move comes after Israel launched what it called a "pre-emptive" strike on Iran's nuclear and military sites that killed at least 78 people, among them civilians as well as top brass. Iran carried out a retaliatory strike on Israel that injured dozens and killed at least one person. The two countries afterwards began tit-for-tat strikes over the course of Friday night and early Saturday morning. Voice of America is one of the largest and oldest US international broadcasters, producing digital, TV and radio content in 48 languages. Its primary audience is non-Americans in countries without press freedoms or independent journalism, such as Iran. But the Trump administration has charged that Voice of America and other networks have a liberal bias in addition to bloated budgets. "The US Agency for Global media will continue to deliver on all statutory programmes that fall under the agency's purview and shed everything that is not statutorily required," USAGM adviser Kari Lake said in a statement in March. "Waste, fraud and abuse run rampant in this agency and American taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it."
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Iran says Israel's actions a 'declaration of war' and accuses US of supporting strikes
Iran 's envoy to the UN accused the US on Friday of providing full political and intelligence support to Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the attacks a 'declaration of war' that killed dozens, including civilians. Iranian ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told the UN Security Council that 78 people had been killed in the strikes, with more than 320 others injured. 'The majority of them are civilians, including women and children,' he said. 'We will not forget that our people lost their lives as a result of the Israeli attacks with American weapons. These actions amount to a declaration of war.' He accused Israel of seeking to derail nuclear deal negotiations with the US and escalate tension in the region. 'This aggression was intentional, co-ordinated and fully backed by a permanent member of this council,' he said. 'The United States' complicity in this terrorist attack is beyond doubt." Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon echoed this, saying the strikes on Iran are an act of "national preservation' which it undertook alone. 'Imagine when the head of the snake would do with a nuclear warhead?' he said. 'We acted because history has taught us that silence is complicity and hesitation is fatal.' He told the council that Israeli intelligence had confirmed that Iran could have produced enough fissile material for several nuclear bombs within days. 'We struck the core of the nuclear programme, the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz. This facility was operating at a military grade capacity. Intelligence confirmed that within days, Iran could have produced enough material for multiple bombs,' he said. On Thursday, Iran was censured by the UN's nuclear watchdog for not complying with obligations meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. US senior State Department official McCoy Pitt told the council that Washington was informed in advance of Israel's strikes on Iranian targets but was not militarily involved. Mr Pitt said Israel had advised the US that 'this action' was necessary for its self-defence. 'Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no exception,' he said. 'President [Donald] Trump has repeatedly said, this dangerous regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.' He added that Washington continues to pursue a diplomatic solution aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons or 'threatening' regional stability. 'Iran's leadership would be wise to negotiate at this time,' he asserted. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog told the Security Council that the aboveground section of Iran's pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz where uranium was being enriched up to 60 per cent has been destroyed in recent Israeli strikes. 'This facility houses both the main fuel enrichment plant and the pilot enrichment plant,' said International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Grossi. Mr Grossi said radiation levels at the Natanz site remained unchanged, with no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, he warned of contamination risks within the facility. 'There is radiological and chemical contamination inside the Natanz facilities due to the impacts,' he said. Mr Grossi also said that Iranian authorities informed them of attacks on two other nuclear facilities, Fordow and Isfahan, 'where a fuel plate fabrication plant, a fuel manufacturing plant, a uranium conversion facility … are located'. Russia strongly condemned Israel's attacks on Iran, with its ambassador saying the "military adventure pushes the region to the brink of a large-scale war, and the responsibility for all of the consequences of these actions lies fully with the Israeli leadership and those who encourage them". 'One is left with the impression that the leadership of Israel is convinced that they have a completely free hand in the region, and they probably think that Israel can flout any legal norms and replace all international bodies, including the Security Council and IAEA,' Vasily Nebenzya said. China's ambassador Fu Cong urged Israel to immediately cease all military 'adventurism' and called on countries with 'significant' influence over Israel to play a 'constructive' role.
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
