Iran and the United States met for the first time in months on April 12 after both countries agreed to indirect negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program, mediated by the Sultanate of Oman, a Persian Gulf state.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Special Envoy for West Asia Stephen Whitcoff represented their respective sides. The U.S. had attempted to bring the UAE on board as a mediator for this latest round, but Iran rejected the proposal. Washington also pushed for direct talks, which Tehran likewise refused.
The negotiations were reportedly conducted in writing, with Oman’s foreign minister acting as an intermediary. This format reflects Iran’s growing distrust of the U.S. following President Donald Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). Trump subsequently reimposed and tightened sanctions that had been lifted under the agreement, prompting Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program in 2020 after it became clear that other JCPOA signatories could not effectively mitigate the impact of U.S. sanctions.
The talks take place against a backdrop of rising tensions, threats, and diplomatic setbacks. Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly threatened military action against Iran unless it signs a new nuclear deal. A directive issued shortly after his return to the White House outlined demands for Iran: roll back its nuclear program, limit missile and drone capabilities, and sever ties with resistance groups in West Asia. These demands drew a sharp rebuke from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared that Iran would not negotiate with an “intimidating” America—a stance echoed by officials across Iran’s political spectrum.
Trump’s Failed Policy: From Threats to Retreat
Western media, citing statements from figures like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have tried to frame Tehran’s participation as a response to the threat of U.S. B-2 bombers stationed at Diego Garcia. However, it is far more likely that the resumption of dialogue happened «despite», not because of, Trump’s policies.
The reality is that Washington has failed to develop a coherent Iran strategy in recent years. Trump has repeatedly claimed his «sole focus» is Iran’s nuclear program, yet his executive orders and tweets have targeted a much broader range of issues—from Tehran’s regional influence to sanctions crippling Iran’s economy. However, in a March letter delivered to Khamenei via an Emirati diplomat, Trump reportedly expressed willingness to negotiate solely on the nuclear issue, excluding discussion of Iran’s military and foreign policy. This aligns with Tehran’s long-standing position that only its nuclear program is open for negotiation.
Since taking office, Trump has failed to deliver on any of his major foreign policy pledges. His current term has been marked more by populist rhetoric than tangible achievements, and his attempts at coercive pressure have often ended in humiliating retreats. The most glaring example was his failed 2017 attempt to intimidate North Korea—after threatening Pyongyang with «fire and fury», Washington was forced to soften its tone and engage in talks that ultimately yielded no real results. Instead of denuclearization, the DPRK expanded its missile and nuclear capabilities. Now, with Trump back in power, the question is: Will history repeat itself with Iran?
Many experts, particularly from the Middle East, believe that while Iran is serious about reaching a nuclear agreement, it remains skeptical of U.S. commitments. “This is a test to see if Trump was sincere in his letter,” a Tehran source stated. “We will not tolerate further demands. Even on the nuclear issue, the Americans must be realistic. If they want us to limit our program but refuse meaningful concessions, it will never happen.”
Iranian leaders have repeatedly emphasized that Tehran is prepared to defend its interests by all means if a mutually beneficial deal cannot be reached. “They must understand that we do not seek war, but we are not afraid of it either,” wrote «Тehran Times». “Iran’s position is clear; it is up to the United States to decide whether it wants to resolve issues.”
First-Day Outcomes
The indirect Iran-U.S. talks in Oman appeared to end on a positive note on April 12, with both sides agreeing to a second round next week—though analysts warn the path to any meaningful breakthrough remains long and fraught.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry described the discussions as “constructive” and “generally positive” in a post-meeting statement. The talks focused on Iran’s nuclear program and U.S. sanctions.
Highlighting the indirect format, the statement noted that Iranian and U.S. delegations were in separate rooms for two and a half hours, communicating via written messages. At the session’s conclusion, Araghchi and Whitcoff held a brief face-to-face meeting, exchanging “courtesy greetings” before departing.
Before the talks, Tehran stated it was willing to give diplomacy a “real chance” but stressed that Washington must show genuine readiness to remove obstacles. A source familiar with the matter told *Tehran Times* that Iran is serious about a deal but will not allow the other side to cross its “red lines.”
Whitcoff, speaking to NBC, also characterized the dialogue as “positive and constructive.”
In comments broadcast on Iranian state TV, Araghchi said the upcoming round would focus on the “format” of negotiations. “This round allowed us to agree on the substance,” he explained. “If we finalize the substance next week, we can then define the format.”
The foreign minister emphasized Iran’s desire for a real agreement, while warning against a “destructive” phase in talks. “However,” he cautioned, “it won’t be easy. Both sides must demonstrate seriousness and resolve.”
Araghchi’s assessment of the Oman talks, while not pessimistic, was hardly enthusiastic. Wendy Sherman, former U.S. deputy secretary of state and lead negotiator under Obama—who dealt with Araghchi during the JCPOA talks—described him as “tough and shrewd,” telling U.S. media that “Whitcoff faces a formidable counterpart.”
Analysts remain hesitant to draw firm conclusions, citing Washington’s history of reneging on agreements.
“The U.S. accepting indirect talks despite initially preferring direct engagement, and agreeing to Oman’s mediation after pushing for the UAE, suggests a temporary shift from its previous inflexibility,” said Amir Ali Abolfath, a North America affairs expert. “But nothing is guaranteed. We must see if Washington stays the course or abruptly changes direction.”
Victor Mikhin, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN) and Middle East expert
