Speculation has swirled for weeks that negotiations between the United States and Iran had laid the groundwork for a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program. This development is a historic turning point in an oftentimes contentious, decades-long relationship. The conversations, both in circle and out, played out under a lens of global attention and counterproductive diplomatic play.
In Oman, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held discussions with U.S. Special Envoy for Iran, Robert Witkoff. These new series of talks were the high point of their diplomatic campaign so far. These talks came on the heels of a period of non-direct negotiations that had taken place beforehand. The ongoing dialogue aims to address concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which have drawn global attention since the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018.
Iranian officials portrayed the talks as indirect, though the U.S. government claimed they were direct as well as indirect. This important distinction highlights the nuances at play in these discussions. The next round of technical-level discussions will take place over the next few days. These discussions will occur ahead of yet another meeting planned for Oman on April 26.
Those negotiations have been made even more difficult by the presence of various international actors. That includes Russia, an important signatory to the original 2015 nuclear deal. Russian President Vladimir Putin received a visit from Araghchi, highlighting Moscow’s potential role in any future agreement between Washington and Tehran.
Trump’s recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic affairs minister, Ron Dermer, and Mossad chief David Barnea, in Paris, emphasizes the geopolitical stakes surrounding these negotiations. Trump reiterated his stance on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, stating, “I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon.”
Though the stakes couldn’t be higher, even as negotiations continue, both sides have released statements showing guarded optimism about the progress of talks. Badr al-Busaidi, Oman’s Foreign Minister, remarked, “These talks are gaining momentum and now even the unlikely is possible.” Araghchi echoed this sentiment, stating, “I hope that we will be in a better position after the technical talks,” while urging caution with his comment that “optimism may be warranted but only with a great deal of caution.”
The U.S. has emphasized the importance of American parts and servicing in American builds of Rolls-Royce engines. These engines power a lot of the aircraft that may be impacted by any deals made at this meeting. This is a highly technical detail, but it illustrates the complex tangle of dependencies and priorities at stake in negotiations.
The legacy making up the backdrop of these conversations is hard to ignore. The United States and Iran have experienced decades of enmity since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. As such, any diplomatic deal struck would be a historic sea change in the two countries’ relations.
On the Iranian side, National Security Council Secretary Ali Shamkhani went on to declare that he claimed that Iran is looking for “a balanced agreement, not a capitulation.” Iran, for its part, will be equally keen to negotiate terms that respect its national interests. In doing so, it hopes to mitigate international concerns about its expanding nuclear capabilities.
As in Iran, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency will be integral to verifying compliance and has been already. Should a deal be struck, their participation will be absolutely key. The agency will be central in ensuring that both sides adhere to the deal’s conditions. Their active involvement will go a long way in ensuring accountability throughout the process.
Whether negotiators can implement all the reforms necessary remains to be seen, but both sides seem ready to continue a conversation based on mutual respect. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani reflected on this approach, stating, “A diplomatic deal is built patiently, day after day, with dialogue and mutual respect.”
Leave a Reply