Editor’s Note: Motahareh Heydari was born in the Iranian seminary city of Qom in 1992 and represents a new generation of Internet-savvy Iranian journalists. She edits “Khabarhaye Fouri Mohem,” or “Important Breaking News,” which is disseminated on a Telegram channel and has a readership of over one million. She has a degree in media management from Soore University in Tehran and has written for a number of Iranian publications including, Shargh newspaper. Her reporting on the impeachment of Iran’s last economy minister got banner headlines in Shargh, a prominent Iranian reformist publication.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives
In a complex atmosphere fraught with mutual distrust, a second round of indirect negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States has taken place in Rome under the mediation of Oman. Initiated after an exchange of letters between top leaders in Washington and Tehran and led by a seasoned diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the talks carry multilayered significance. They mark a departure from mere message exchanges and a move toward testing the strategic will of both sides.
Iran has entered these talks despite deep mistrust of the U.S. caused by the American withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during the first Trump administration, at a time when Iran was still in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Choosing Muscat as the mediator and main venue and employing largely indirect diplomacy reflects Iran’s resolve to manage tensions from a position of strength, dignity, and diplomatic prudence. Oman has served as a go-between for the U.S. and Iran since the 1990s and hosted backchannel talks in 2013 that preceded the successful JCPOA negotiations.
Araghchi, a former deputy foreign minister and a key figure in achieving the 2015 nuclear agreement, has returned to the front lines, using the language of diplomacy to try to secure Iran’s national interests. For international observers, his presence signals Iran’s openness to negotiations, but only with trusted interlocutors, under carefully defined conditions, and in the absence of external pressure.
In contrast, the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is a real estate developer who is new to the world of international diplomacy and has been tasked with resolving not only the U.S. dispute with Iran but also the Gaza conflict and the war in Ukraine. His appointment reflects President Trump’s personality-driven, transactional approach to foreign policy, which has contributed to an imbalance in the negotiation dynamic. Although his inexperience may offer Tehran certain psychological advantages, it also increases the risk of miscommunication and delays.
Why Indirect Talks Matter to Iran
Witkoff and Araghchi exchanged pleasantries after their first meeting in Oman, but the talks so far have been largely indirect, with messages passed between the two sides by the Omani foreign minister.
Recognized in diplomatic literature, indirect written negotiations are often used to mitigate unnecessary risks. Iran’s use of this tactic is intended to minimize the dangers of direct contact with what Tehran perceives as an inexperienced U.S. team and to assert more control over the narrative. Iran sees the approach not as an indication of weakness but as a calculated strategy for diplomacy under complex circumstances.
Speaking after the first U.S.-Iran meeting in Oman, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iranians “shouldn’t be overly optimistic about this dialogue, nor overly pessimistic… The first steps have been taken well and executed properly. From here on, the process should be followed carefully.” He added, “We may or may not reach a result, but either way, it’s worth pursuing.”
Following the second round of talks in Rome on April 19, Araghchi said that “negotiations are moving forward,” and added that the two officials were able to reach a “better understanding about a series of principles and goals.”
Although messages from the Trump administration regarding Iran have been mixed, the president has indicated a strong desire for an agreement that would first and foremost resolve Western concerns about Iran’s nuclear advancements. Statements from President Trump suggest he regards Iran as a serious actor, despite also threatening to use military force or impose even more economic sanctions if no agreement is reached.
With a third round of talks scheduled Saturday in Muscat, the prospects for an agreement, from Iran’s point of view, rest in part on how the U.S. responds to Iran’s strategic logic. It remains unclear whether the Trump administration is ready to move beyond the path of “maximum pressure” and engage in a dialogue rooted in mutual respect.
According to reports from the talks, Iran has proposed a three-phase plan that would cap uranium enrichment at a low level and increase international monitoring of the nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson reiterated that Iran has re-entered negotiations with the sole aim of protecting its national interests through diplomacy. Araghchi stated that both sides had reached a “better understanding” of certain principles and objectives, but added, “There’s neither a reason for excessive optimism nor excessive pessimism.”
There have been reports that the U.S. is willing to accept some of Iran’s proposals—such as acknowledging Iran’s right to peaceful enrichment—and give up demands for a full dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program. In comments posted Monday on the social media platform X, Araghchi reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons as one of the founding signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and added, “We are also the only country on the planet that officially opposes nuclear arms on moral and religious grounds, through a religious edict by Iran’s Supreme Leader outlawing such weapons.”
For Iranians, one positive outcome from initial talks has been a slight recovery in the value of the Iranian currency, the rial. This suggests that the Iranian public and business sectors are closely monitoring the negotiations, with immediate economic consequences based on diplomatic signals.
Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be tasked with monitoring any deal, visited Iran on April 17 and told Iranian journalists, “We know that we are in a very crucial, I would say, stage of this important negotiation, so I want to concentrate on the positive… “There is a possibility of a good outcome. Nothing is guaranteed. We need to make sure that we put all of the elements in place … in order to get to this agreement.”
To help achieve a successful outcome, Iranians should maintain internal unity, support dignified diplomacy, and avoid sensationalism in the media. The window that has opened could be far more than a return to the past but a significant step in potentially repositioning Iran more favorably in regional and global diplomacy—provided the process remains strategically grounded and internally unified.
Progress in Iran–US Talks as Seen from Iran
By Motahareh Heydari
Middle East & North Africa
Editor’s Note: Motahareh Heydari was born in the Iranian seminary city of Qom in 1992 and represents a new generation of Internet-savvy Iranian journalists. She edits “Khabarhaye Fouri Mohem,” or “Important Breaking News,” which is disseminated on a Telegram channel and has a readership of over one million. She has a degree in media management from Soore University in Tehran and has written for a number of Iranian publications including, Shargh newspaper. Her reporting on the impeachment of Iran’s last economy minister got banner headlines in Shargh, a prominent Iranian reformist publication.
By Barbara Slavin, Distinguished Fellow, Middle East Perspectives
In a complex atmosphere fraught with mutual distrust, a second round of indirect negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States has taken place in Rome under the mediation of Oman. Initiated after an exchange of letters between top leaders in Washington and Tehran and led by a seasoned diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the talks carry multilayered significance. They mark a departure from mere message exchanges and a move toward testing the strategic will of both sides.
Iran has entered these talks despite deep mistrust of the U.S. caused by the American withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during the first Trump administration, at a time when Iran was still in compliance with the nuclear agreement. Choosing Muscat as the mediator and main venue and employing largely indirect diplomacy reflects Iran’s resolve to manage tensions from a position of strength, dignity, and diplomatic prudence. Oman has served as a go-between for the U.S. and Iran since the 1990s and hosted backchannel talks in 2013 that preceded the successful JCPOA negotiations.
Araghchi, a former deputy foreign minister and a key figure in achieving the 2015 nuclear agreement, has returned to the front lines, using the language of diplomacy to try to secure Iran’s national interests. For international observers, his presence signals Iran’s openness to negotiations, but only with trusted interlocutors, under carefully defined conditions, and in the absence of external pressure.
In contrast, the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is a real estate developer who is new to the world of international diplomacy and has been tasked with resolving not only the U.S. dispute with Iran but also the Gaza conflict and the war in Ukraine. His appointment reflects President Trump’s personality-driven, transactional approach to foreign policy, which has contributed to an imbalance in the negotiation dynamic. Although his inexperience may offer Tehran certain psychological advantages, it also increases the risk of miscommunication and delays.
Why Indirect Talks Matter to Iran
Witkoff and Araghchi exchanged pleasantries after their first meeting in Oman, but the talks so far have been largely indirect, with messages passed between the two sides by the Omani foreign minister.
Recognized in diplomatic literature, indirect written negotiations are often used to mitigate unnecessary risks. Iran’s use of this tactic is intended to minimize the dangers of direct contact with what Tehran perceives as an inexperienced U.S. team and to assert more control over the narrative. Iran sees the approach not as an indication of weakness but as a calculated strategy for diplomacy under complex circumstances.
Speaking after the first U.S.-Iran meeting in Oman, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iranians “shouldn’t be overly optimistic about this dialogue, nor overly pessimistic… The first steps have been taken well and executed properly. From here on, the process should be followed carefully.” He added, “We may or may not reach a result, but either way, it’s worth pursuing.”
Following the second round of talks in Rome on April 19, Araghchi said that “negotiations are moving forward,” and added that the two officials were able to reach a “better understanding about a series of principles and goals.”
Although messages from the Trump administration regarding Iran have been mixed, the president has indicated a strong desire for an agreement that would first and foremost resolve Western concerns about Iran’s nuclear advancements. Statements from President Trump suggest he regards Iran as a serious actor, despite also threatening to use military force or impose even more economic sanctions if no agreement is reached.
With a third round of talks scheduled Saturday in Muscat, the prospects for an agreement, from Iran’s point of view, rest in part on how the U.S. responds to Iran’s strategic logic. It remains unclear whether the Trump administration is ready to move beyond the path of “maximum pressure” and engage in a dialogue rooted in mutual respect.
According to reports from the talks, Iran has proposed a three-phase plan that would cap uranium enrichment at a low level and increase international monitoring of the nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and the release of frozen assets. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson reiterated that Iran has re-entered negotiations with the sole aim of protecting its national interests through diplomacy. Araghchi stated that both sides had reached a “better understanding” of certain principles and objectives, but added, “There’s neither a reason for excessive optimism nor excessive pessimism.”
There have been reports that the U.S. is willing to accept some of Iran’s proposals—such as acknowledging Iran’s right to peaceful enrichment—and give up demands for a full dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program. In comments posted Monday on the social media platform X, Araghchi reiterated Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons as one of the founding signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and added, “We are also the only country on the planet that officially opposes nuclear arms on moral and religious grounds, through a religious edict by Iran’s Supreme Leader outlawing such weapons.”
For Iranians, one positive outcome from initial talks has been a slight recovery in the value of the Iranian currency, the rial. This suggests that the Iranian public and business sectors are closely monitoring the negotiations, with immediate economic consequences based on diplomatic signals.
Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be tasked with monitoring any deal, visited Iran on April 17 and told Iranian journalists, “We know that we are in a very crucial, I would say, stage of this important negotiation, so I want to concentrate on the positive… “There is a possibility of a good outcome. Nothing is guaranteed. We need to make sure that we put all of the elements in place … in order to get to this agreement.”
To help achieve a successful outcome, Iranians should maintain internal unity, support dignified diplomacy, and avoid sensationalism in the media. The window that has opened could be far more than a return to the past but a significant step in potentially repositioning Iran more favorably in regional and global diplomacy—provided the process remains strategically grounded and internally unified.
Recent & Related