The talks, originally scheduled for Friday in Istanbul with several regional countries expected to attend, were moved to Oman at Iran’s request and narrowed to bilateral discussions between Tehran and Washington.
Tehran had also reiterated its insistence on indirect negotiations, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sitting in a separate room from Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, relying on Omani mediators to shuttle messages between the two sides.
State media further reported that the talks would focus exclusively on the nuclear issue, as in previous rounds.
However, The New York Times reported on Thursday that while Iran’s nuclear program would be the main focus, the two sides agreed that negotiations would also cover missiles and Tehran’s support for militant groups.
The newspaper cited three Iranian officials and one Arab official as saying the US agreed to hold the talks in Oman and exclude regional actors, while Iranian officials agreed to face their American counterparts.
Negotiations to avoid war—or merely delay it?
While diplomats maneuver, hardliners continue to float threats of preemptive strikes on Israel and closing the Strait of Hormuz, while claiming that Iran’s military posture has forced Trump to reconsider his repeated threats of military action.
Former foreign minister and lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki said the likelihood of a US attack has dropped “from 100 percent to around 50 percent,” attributing the change to Washington’s doubts about achieving victory.
Journalist Hossein Yazdi, however, cited three developments over the past few days—the IRGC’s harassment of a US vessel in the Persian Gulf, the US downing of an IRGC Shahed-139 surveillance drone in the Arabian Sea, and Iran’s insistence on moving talks to Oman without Arab observers—as evidence that negotiations are not serious.
“Both sides have their hands on the trigger,” he wrote.
Iran’s red lines remain intact
It remains unclear whether Iran, facing Trump’s threats and the risk of war, is willing to reconsider positions that contributed to the collapse of previous negotiations.
Conservative analyst Hossein Qatib, who has previously advocated crossing the nuclear threshold, warned against surrendering Iran’s estimated 400 kilograms of enriched uranium.
“Any decision regarding these stockpiles must be designed with maximum distrust toward the other side’s intentions,” he wrote. “Handing them over in one go—under any title—is not goodwill or strategic rationality. It is voluntary disarmament under military threat.”
Others echoed familiar red lines. Esmail Kowsari, a member of parliament’s national security committee, said Iran’s missile capabilities and regional activities are “absolutely none of America’s business.”
Former deputy speaker Ali Motahari likewise cited enrichment rights, missile range, support for the so-called Axis of Resistance, and refusal to recognize Israel as all non-negotiable.
Few expect a breakthrough
Given Iran’s insistence on these red lines, its past negotiating record, and recent mass killings of protesters that have plunged the Islamic Republic into a severe legitimacy crisis, few analysts express optimism.
Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour told Iran International that the Islamic Republic is, for the first time, confronting both a real external threat and a profound internal legitimacy crisis. “This combination is deadly,” he said, adding that Tehran can no longer assume it can cross Trump’s red lines and face only rhetorical consequences.
Former diplomat Nosratollah Tajik was blunt: “It is unlikely this round of mediation will go anywhere due to structural issues, the gap between goals and expectations, and the unfinished business of the previous two stages of Iran–US conflict.”
Mottaki also expressed doubt, saying: “These talks will not produce tangible results, but they may deter the US from imposing war.”
Yazdi argued there are no signs of serious negotiations, noting that Iran wants to resume narrow nuclear talks in Oman, while Trump and Israel seek far broader concessions. “From their perspective, destroyed nuclear facilities are no longer the top priority,” he wrote.
A user on X warned that failed talks would only make a Trump-led war against Iran appear more justified in the eyes of the international community.
Who really decides?
President Masoud Pezeshkian weighed in with a rare post on X on Tuesday, saying he had instructed the foreign minister to pursue talks “if there is a suitable, threat-free atmosphere.”
The wording sparked controversy, as few doubt that foreign policy is ultimately controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. A community note was even added to the post.
"The person who makes the decisions in Iran is the Supreme Leader. The President doesn't really matter," US Vice-President J.D. Vance said on Wednesday.
"The Foreign Minister seems to talk to the Supreme Leader and that's mainly the person that we've communicated with. But it's a very weird country to conduct diplomacy with when you can't even talk to the person who's in charge of the country."
Researcher Abbas Gheidari interpreted Pezeshkian’s phrase “I instructed” as an attempt to preemptively assume responsibility for a potential nuclear concession to protect Khamenei.
Vice President Jafar Ghaempanah tried to soften the debate, writing: “No war is good, and not every peace is surrender.” Some conservatives such as Abdolreza Davari read this as a sign of an imminent deal. Ultra-hardline lawmaker Mehdi Koochakzadeh, however, warned that “the peace imposed by the architects of the JCPOA will bring humiliation worse than surrender.”
Protesters’ anger and pressure on Trump
Some Iranian activists and social media users have reacted angrily to what they describe as Trump’s flexibility, saying Tehran is once again buying time.
“This is what they’ve done for nearly 30 years,” one user wrote. “Trump prioritizes extracting concessions, not regime change—otherwise he wouldn’t have stopped Israel in the 12-day war.”
One image sent by a citizen to Iran International showed graffiti reading: “President Trump: Don’t negotiate with the killers of the Iranian people.”
