The diplomatic track between Washington and Tehran has returned to the forefront once again in Muscat. However, US military reinforcements threatening Iran continue to pour into the Middle East. Setting aside the optimistic tone adopted by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who described the talks as positive, Donald Trump stated immediately after the negotiations that bombing Iran remains an option if no agreement is reached.
From a political analysis perspective, the Iranian response is expected to be framed in optimistic language, as this contributes to strengthening the Iranian rial and provides much needed economic support. Talks, by their nature, can bolster Iran’s struggling economy, as occurred in the past. However, it is unlikely that this scenario will be repeated today, as there have been no breakthroughs in the recent negotiations. This constitutes the first observation emerging from the latest round of talks.
The second observation is that Iran insisted the negotiations be indirect. This means the two sides did not sit at the same table face to face. Instead, the Omani foreign minister alternated meetings with each side separately, conveying their respective positions. In international negotiations, this approach is generally read as a negative indicator of how matters may develop. The Americans interpreted this Iranian demand as an attempt to buy time and as evidence that Tehran lacks serious intent to engage. Iran’s insistence on limiting discussions solely to the nuclear file also reinforced the perception that it seeks to stall, making the situation extremely dangerous and rendering the possibility of a US military strike against Iran highly plausible.
Some may assume that the greatest achievement of the US Iranian talks was averting the spectre of war, regardless of whether a genuine agreement was reached. This view, however, is far from reality. The United States and Iran stand on the edge of the abyss, and confrontation could erupt at any moment, as it is exceedingly difficult to identify any tangible outcomes produced by the recent negotiations. The Iranian foreign minister’s description of a good beginning reflects an Iranian perspective, but it is not necessarily a good start from the American point of view. This initial Iranian reading is familiar from Abbas Araghchi, who consistently presents an optimistic image of talks with the Americans. The last round of his negotiations in Muscat in June remains fresh in memory. At that time, he spoke of significant progress, yet two days later the United States entered the war alongside Israel and bombed Iran. Accordingly, the chances of military confrontation are far greater than those of a diplomatic breakthrough, given the profound gap between the two sides.
There is also an argument that the United States must take into account the interests of its Arab allies, who urged Washington to give diplomacy with Iran a chance instead of war, from which they would suffer severe consequences. The reality, however, is that the American decision has not considered Arab interests, or Gulf interests in particular. The most influential actor shaping US policy on Iran is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who demonstrated his ability to influence Trump’s decision in June and push him into participating in the war. Today, there is strategic rather than tactical coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding the nature of any attack on Iran.
The facts on the ground indicate that Iran is negotiating under fire. A striking indication of this is that the US negotiating delegation, led by Steve Witkoff, included the commander of US Central Command among its members. This underscores that the military stick was present on the table alongside diplomacy, in addition to the American naval and air build up in the region. Washington and Tel Aviv now share the conviction that Iran is in an extremely fragile position, weakened, penetrated, and facing major internal challenges. This is viewed as a golden moment that calls for delivering a final blow. Trump himself faces significant domestic difficulties, and any confrontation with Iran could alter the internal equation. Moreover, his repeated threats against Iran have begun to constrain his own decision making on this issue. He cannot retreat without securing the ultimate prize or a major historical achievement, either through regime change or by reaching an agreement that strips Tehran of all its leverage.
The current American objective is not Iran’s nuclear programme. If that were truly the goal, the Iranian leadership has shown full readiness to make substantial concessions in this file. The broader US strategic objective is to dismantle the structure of the ruling system in Tehran. This does not necessarily mean complete regime change, as occurred in Iraq. Rather, what Washington has done in Venezuela may represent the new American model it intends to apply, whether in Iran or elsewhere.
The targeting of states by the United States typically begins with sanctions, followed by protests and popular mobilisation, and finally media propaganda aimed at portraying the regime in an extremely negative light. In the Iranian case, this has already occurred, not only at the hands of the United States but also recently by the European Union, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation and barred some Iranian politicians from travelling to Brussels. The military dimension is usually the final stage in targeting states.
Accordingly, Iran now finds itself in the final stage, namely military force. From this perspective, one may accept the notion of American diplomatic manoeuvring in transforming the Iranian file into an international issue. Until now, Iran has defended itself by claiming it is targeted by the greater and lesser devils, namely the United States and Israel. Washington, however, will argue that it offered Iran an opportunity through peaceful negotiations, which ultimately failed, paving the way for an international case against Tehran.
The question then arises as to whether the current negotiations could offer Iran an opportunity to save face, preserve the system, and open a new chapter with the West and the United States in particular. It is difficult to answer this question at present, as there appears to be a division within Iran’s ruling elite on this matter. One camp seeks a historic settlement with the United States, believing that the very existence of the system is at stake. For this group, focusing exclusively on the nuclear file and offering Trump what he wants in this area would ensure the survival of the system.
