Indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States have entered a renewed phase, marked by cautious progress but lingering skepticism over the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
Facilitated by Oman, the latest round of talks in Rome saw both sides describe the discussions as “forward-moving,” though analysts stress that geopolitical complexities and historical tensions continue to cloud the path to a lasting deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Special Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff engaged in four hours of mediated dialogue on Saturday, with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad bin Hamood Albusaidi bridging the divide. Araghchi characterized the atmosphere as “constructive,” noting improved alignment on several principles. Technical teams are slated to convene in Oman this week to address granular details, followed by another high-level meeting a pace underscoring the urgency both nations attach to de-escalation.
The diplomatic push comes against a backdrop of regional volatility. Khalid Ahmed, a Qatar University political scientist, argued that domestic economic pressures are steering Washington toward compromise. “An open conflict with Iran is off the table for a financially constrained U.S.,” he said, adding that both sides prioritize stabilizing their economies. Regional analyst Ahmed Al-Shezawi highlighted Iran’s strategic leverage, including its missile capabilities and control of the Strait of Hormuz, which complicate U.S. military options. “Washington’s struggles in Yemen against the Houthis, despite their limited resources, reveal the risks of confronting Tehran directly,” he noted.
Efforts to revive the defunct 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) remain central to the talks. The agreement unraveled after the U.S. withdrew in 2018, triggering a spiral of sanctions and nuclear advancements. While Albusaidi optimistically declared on social media that “even the unlikely is possible,” Steven Wright, an international relations scholar, cautioned that Iran’s perception of a shifting global order marked by U.S. retrenchment and rising multipolarity could harden its stance. “Tehran may resist concessions, betting that American influence is waning,” he said.
Despite the procedural momentum, core disputes persist. Iran demands guarantees of sanctions relief and non-interference, while the U.S. seeks irreversible curbs on nuclear activities. Trust deficits, compounded by regional proxy conflicts and divergent alliances, further complicate negotiations.
The talks underscore a fragile diplomatic equilibrium, balancing incremental gains against entrenched rivalries. While technical discussions may resolve ancillary issues, bridging fundamental divides will demand sustained political commitment a challenge amid electoral pressures in both nations and escalating tensions elsewhere in the Middle East.
The Iran-U.S. dialogue reflects a broader trend of conflict management over resolution in contemporary geopolitics. As third-party mediators like Oman carve pathways for communication, the process itself highlights the diminishing returns of unilateralism. For the Middle East, even tentative diplomacy offers a reprieve from escalation, yet long-term stability hinges on addressing the structural imbalances from sanctions regimes to security architectures that perpetuate cycles of confrontation. In an era of fragmented global governance, such negotiations test whether incrementalism can eventually yield transformative outcomes.
