Iran and the United States concluded a first round of “productive” talks on Tehran’s nuclear program on Saturday, with both sides agreeing to a follow-up meeting next week. The discussions, mediated by Oman, took place in separate rooms in Muscat, without handshakes or official photos, following weeks of vitriolic statements and belligerent rhetoric from both sides.
“I believe we are close to establishing a foundation for negotiations, and if we can finalize it next week, we will have made significant progress and be ready to begin serious discussions,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview with state television.
Araghchi headed the Iranian delegation, indirectly engaging with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, a senior official on Middle East affairs in President Trump’s administration who has also recently been drawn into negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The talks, which lasted over two and a half hours, were held in an atmosphere that Iranian sources described as “productive and marked by mutual respect.”
In a statement, Tehran clarified that the discussions focused on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear program,” with particular emphasis on its demand for the removal of what it termed “illegitimate” sanctions. Diplomatic sources told Al Jazeera that both sides would be asked to produce a position paper stating the most important issues and their respective red lines.
The talks were authorized by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who granted Araghchi “full authority” to lead the negotiations. At the close of the meeting, Araghchi and Witkoff briefly spoke outside the venue, observed by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi.
Cuation, however, remains the dominant tone. “We are at the outset; it is normal for this stage to be limited to formal exchanges of positions through Omani mediation,” Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, explained state media.
Saturday’s was Iran’s first indirect engagement with the Trump administration, now three months into its second term. The memory of the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — a nuclear deal signed by President Obama in 2015 with six other world powers — continues to cast a shadow. And so do the sanctions reimposed under the “maximum pressure” strategy, which Washington revived in February.
The Iranian leadership continue to rule out any negotiations over their missile program and reiterate that they have no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet concerns persist in the West: Iran’s stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium — a technical threshold close to the 90% needed for nuclear weapons — remains a point of ongoing alarm in Washington, Brussels, and particularly Tel Aviv.
The White House remains wary of Tehran’s intentions. Last Thursday, it expanded sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector and key areas related to its nuclear program.
Prior to the talks, President Trump warned the Iranians about the possibility of military action if no agreement is reached.
“I want Iran to be a wonderful, great, happy country, but they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday evening as he headed to Mar-a-Lago. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was more forthright, stating that if Tehran does not comply, there will be “all hell to pay.”
Behind closed doors, the U.S. and Israel — Trump’s main international ally — are reportedly crafting a strategy of strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, refineries, and civilian infrastructure in case the negotiations with the Pasdaran break down. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also said to have discussed a so-called “Libyan option” with Trump, consisting in the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.
In 2003, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi publicly renounced his weapons of mass destruction program after secret negotiations with the United States and the United Kingdom following the invasion of Iraq. Fearing his regime would meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein’s, Gaddafi agreed to dismantle his nuclear infrastructure and transfer the equipment to the United States in exchange for the reopening of Libyan oil exports and foreign investment in the country.
The NATO-led military intervention that toppled him eight years later, however, remains a cautionary tale for many in Tehran.
Should the escalation continue, Iranian authorities have so far said they are ready to tear up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and remove International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from the Islamic Republic. A rupture in negotiations, however, could trigger a devastating military escalation in a region already beset by instability – from the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the West Bank to missile exchanges between Iran and Israel, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which left the country on the brink of a proxy conflict between Israel and Turkey.
Few in Muscat seem under any illusion that a breakthrough is imminent. After more than two decades of distrust and animosity, skepticism between the two countries remains deep, and the clock for diplomacy appears to be ticking faster than Iran’s centrifuges.
