How positive signals in US-Iran nuclear talks spark hope for peace – Firstpost

On April 12, Iran and the US held their first talks since President Donald Trump’s second term began. The two-and-a-half-hour meeting held in Muscat, Oman, was brief and respectful and set the stage for a second round. Both countries described the talks as “constructive” and confirmed a second round of discussions will take place next week, with the US hailing the “direct communication” as being key to striking a possible deal.

The US Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a veteran of the 2015 talks who holds a PhD in political thought from the University of Kent, “briefly spoke” together, the first time the two nations have done that since the Obama administration.

They were the most significant talks since Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 during his first term in office. After the talks, Araghchi said discussions next week may not happen in Oman but would still be mediated by them. The White House said they would take place next Saturday.

“Neither we nor the other party want fruitless negotiations, discussions for discussions’ sake, time wasting or talks that drag on forever,” Araghchi told Iranian state television. The most important issue at stake is what kind of deal each side would be willing to accept.

The Meeting

Speculation over whether the American and Iranian envoys would meet directly or indirectly was settled by doing both. The Iranian and US teams sat in separate rooms for the duration of the two-and-a-half-hour negotiations, with the Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi shuffling back and forth. At the end, Witkoff and Araghchi met in person briefly.

The verdict of Iran’s lead negotiator was positive. “It was a constructive meeting held in a very peaceful and respectful environment because there were no sharp words used,” Araghchi told Iranian state TV. “Both sides showed commitment to take these talks forward until we reach a deal that is favourable to both sides.”

Prior to the meeting, he had said the goal was to build trust and to reach an agreement on the framework and timeline for negotiations on the nuclear programme. Iran had indicated that if the US pursued full dismantlement of its nuclear programme, it would walk away from the talks.

His tone suggests the US team led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff did not reiterate some of the President’s threats that Iran would face “great danger” if this dialogue did not succeed.

He also said, “I think we are very close to a basis for negotiations, and if we can conclude this basis next week, we’ll have gone a long way and will be able to start real discussions based on that.”

Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi wrote on X that the talks “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,” Busaidi added.

President Trump, who pulled the US out of a previous nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers in 2018, has long said he would make a “better” deal.

Witkoff, who is leading the US delegation, had previously only spoken of meeting face-to-face. But Araghchi and Witkoff did speak for a few minutes in the presence of Busaidi in what could be a small but significant opening.

Iran, mindful of pressure from hardliners at home, underlined how limited their face-to-face exchange was, with no photographs taken.

For Iran, the first round of talks went as well as could be expected. It can claim that two of its main conditions for taking the negotiations to the next level were achieved: Washington kept the focus on Iran’s nuclear programme and did not mention the dismantling of its nuclear facilities or its regional policy with proxy militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

The talks were broad and aimed at maintaining a dialogue. As per reports, Steve Witkoff did not suggest that Iran abandon its enrichment programme entirely. Instead, the focus was on the country not weaponising its existing material. But added, “That doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to bridge gaps.”

In a statement following the talks, the White House noted that Witkoff had emphasised to Iran that he had instructions to resolve the adversaries’ “differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible”.

“These issues are very complicated, and Special Envoy Witkoff’s direct communication today was a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome,” the statement added.

Araghchi had said ahead of the discussions that his country wanted a “fair agreement”.

The Stance of Various Countries

President Trump had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader via the UAE last month, saying he wanted a deal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avert possible military strikes by the US and Israel. He said he would rather find a way to forge a deal than escalate a military campaign. If such a deal could not be reached in the coming weeks, he had said, Iran may face a military campaign against its facilities. President Trump received a letter back saying the moment to talk had arrived.

Trump had then revealed the talks would take place during a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on April 7. Ahead of the talks, Trump said on Friday that he wanted Iran “to be a wonderful, great, happy country – but they can’t have nuclear weapons”.

Trump has warned that the US would use military force if a deal was not reached, while Iran has repeatedly said it will not negotiate under pressure. Even as preparations were under way to arrange this first meeting, the US moved two aircraft carriers, additional B-2 stealth bombers and fighter jets, as well as air defences to the region, and imposed more sanctions.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
said on April 10 that he hoped the talks would lead to peace, adding that “We’ve been very clear that Iran is never going to have a nuclear weapon, and I think that’s what led to this meeting.”

The Iranian delegation had planned to convey that it was open to talking about scaling back uranium enrichment and allowing outside monitoring of its nuclear activity, according to reports.

On April 8, the Iranian newspaper Javan wrote that Tehran dictated “the type of talks, their timing, location and agenda”, portraying Washington’s participation as a sign of strategic need, not strength.

Iran insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and that it will never seek to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. It hopes for a deal to limit, but not dismantle, its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian officials also made it clear the negotiations would focus only on its nuclear programme, not its broader defence capability, such as its ballistic missile programme.

Iran has sought sanctions relief as its economy reels from renewed US pressure and regional setbacks in exchange for limits on its nuclear programme
during the talks. It also needs time and space to recover from a string of
strategic blows that have significantly diminished its standing and influence in the region. These aims, however, cannot be achieved without settling the nuclear issue.

However, since Trump pulled out of the 2015 agreement, which expires later this year, Iran has increasingly breached restrictions in retaliation to crippling US sanctions reinstated seven years ago and has stockpiled enough highly enriched uranium to make several bombs. Under the terms of the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to only enrich uranium up to 3.67 per cent purity.

In February, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Tehran had stockpiled uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity and could swiftly move to 90 per cent, which would be weapons-grade.

The 2015 nuclear deal took nearly two years of intensive negotiations. At the start of this new effort to reach an agreement, Iran’s programme is far more developed and complex, and the wider region is far more volatile. At issue is also the fact that the UK, Germany and France must signal by the end of July whether they will reimpose UN sanctions against Tehran. The option to reimpose those sanctions, which were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, will expire on October 18.

The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on April 8 had said that both he and President Trump had agreed that Iran “will not have nuclear weapons”. He called for a “Libya-style deal”, referring to Libya completely dismantling its weapons programme in an agreement reached with Western powers in 2003. That would be completely unacceptable to Iran.

Israel, which regards Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat, has long threatened to attack Iran if diplomacy fails to curb its nuclear ambitions. “The deal with Iran is acceptable only if the nuclear sites are destroyed under US supervision,” is what Prime Minister Netanyahu stated.

The next rounds of talks will have tricky issues regarding dispensing with the Iranian stockpile and the reintroduction of an independent inspection regime. While both sides may have cleared a low bar, each side must exercise restraint. For the US, this could mean dialling back the military threats. “For Iran, signalling more openness to direct negotiations and ceasing warnings of weaponisation options can help build momentum and put a breakthrough in reach.”

Iranian 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.

Conclusion

The two sides came in with deep distrust, but President Trump now wants to strike a deal both to showcase his negotiating skills and to keep simmering tensions between Iran and Israel from escalating into a more intense conflict that would lead to further turmoil in West Asia.

Given the challenges, even a limited deal that does not fundamentally dismantle Iran’s programme and leads to the lifting of sanctions will be a huge positive. India will, of course, benefit immensely from Iran’s reintegration into the world economy, as it will result in resuming crude oil purchases as well as furthering the North-South Trade Corridor, including Chabahar Port.

Though there are fears that Iran is likely to extend diplomatic talks for as long as possible both to delay Israeli military action and to push past an October 18 deadline when the UN’s authority to impose quick “snapback” sanctions on Iran expires.

However, signs of diplomatic development could help cool tensions in a region aflame with wars in Gaza and Lebanon and missile exchanges between Iran and Israel, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the overthrow of the government in Syria. Failure would aggravate fears of a wider conflagration across a region that exports much of the world’s oil.

While the meeting may have been about format and scope, the two sides would soon need to delve into technical negotiations, and that’s the hard part of talks. The positive is that both Iran and the US are likely on the same page with regards to the endgame in these negotiations and thus could be moving forward.

The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.