Everything you need to know about Oman talks—and more
The Iranist for the week of April 11, 2025
THE هفت/SEVEN THINGS TO KNOW THIS WEEK:
۱/1 Direct or indirect talks? Potato, potahto
In mid-March, US President Donald Trump sent a letter to Tehran via an Emirati intermediary. While the exact contents were unclear, a former aide of Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Zayed claimed the contents of the letter allegedly said that Iran has two months to meet its demands of dismantling its nuclear program and ending its support of proxies or face military action (X). At the end of March, Tehran responded to the letter delivered via Oman, saying they were open to indirect negotiations.
TALKS ARE ON. On April 7, as President Trump spoke alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a meeting in the White House, he announced that the US and Iran would be engaged in “direct talks” over the country’s controversial nuclear program on April 12 (ABC News). The date happens to coincide with the beginning of Passover.
Trump told reporters:
“We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started. It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen. And I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious (as in attack the country)... So, we’re going to see if we can avoid it. But it’s getting to be very dangerous territory. And hopefully those talks will be successful. And I think it would be in Iran’s best interests if they are successful.” (ABC News)
Responding to questions from journalists, Netanyahu said:
“If it (negotiations) can be done diplomatically in a full way the way it was done in Libya, I think that would be a good thing. But whatever happens, we have to make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.” (Politico)
Hours after the news broke, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X:
“Iran and the United States will meet in Oman on Saturday for indirect high-level talks. It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America’s court.”
It’s worth noting that just two days later, on April 9, the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions related to support for Iran’s nuclear program (Reuters).
US Special Envoy for Middle East (and Russia issues) Steve Witkoff is meeting with the Iranian foreign minister in Oman. It’s uncertain whether the talks will yield meaningful results, but Tehran is under pressure.
The Islamic Republic is dealing with a dire situation on the ground, marred by a crumbling economy, water crisis, and historic anti-regime sentiment. Striking some sort of deal in exchange for sanctions relief would be a temporary band-aid on these issues, which are in part caused by systemic mismanagement, corruption, and repression. This is coupled with the past year’s developments in the region that have severely impacted its security doctrine.
Faced with a two-month deadline for talks or military action against its nuclear facilities, it’s evident that Trump’s negotiation tactic against the Iranians is working in his favor thus far. That advantage may change in Oman, given that Araghchi has more than a decade of knowledge and experience on the file, unlike the US special envoy, who lacks the expertise to negotiate an arms control agreement. However, the US ultimately holds the cards.
DIRECT OR INDIRECT? As evident by the comments made by President Trump and Foreign Minister Araghchi, there appears to be confusion about whether the talks will be direct or indirect (as in through Omani intermediaries). According to State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce on April 8, the talks aren’t a “negotiation” but rather “a matter of determining what’s possible in the conversations.” (Diplomatic) If Trump gets his way, they would be the first face-to-face talks since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, which he exited from in 2018 despite Tehran not violating the deal at the time (New York Times).
Tehran insists on indirect talks because it doesn’t trust the United States to deliver and is worried about domestic blowback from hardline elements of the clerical establishment. Araghchi said to a journalist: “The key isn’t the format (direct/indirect), but effectiveness of the talks, seriousness, and intentions.” (X) Washington sees the push for indirect talks as an excuse to buy time, which analysts say Iranian negotiators are known for, in order to exhaust their foreign counterparts and to shape the information flow.
On April 10, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the talks were direct, adding, “We hope that’ll lead to peace. We’ve been very clear what Iran is never going to have a nuclear weapon, and I think that’s what led to this meeting.” (Reuters) The Washington Post reported that a US official said that if the talks weren’t direct Witkoff wouldn’t travel to Oman. While historian and writer Arash Azizi said Iranian sources told him that the talks were direct, comments also echoed by an Iran-based analyst who noted that the chatter of indirect talks was for “domestic consumption.” (X/X) Nevertheless, as one analyst pointed out, the foes are already directly talking—on X.
There is caution on both sides because of forty-six years of distrust between the US and Iran. Nevertheless, Tehran appears to know how to speak the language of the Trump administration, as evidenced by Araghchi’s op-ed in the Washington Post on April 8, where he highlights two key issues that Trump cares about: avoiding wars and US trade incentives—though the latter is a lot harder to do in Iran due to sanctions, political risk, red tape, and corruption.
The next day, President Masoud Pezeshkian also dangled the possibility of direct US investment in Iran, which it opposed during the 2015 JCPOA (due to its historic anti-US sentiment). He said in a speech, “His excellency (referring to Khamenei) has no opposition to investment by American investors in Iran. American investors: Come and invest.” (AP)
Meanwhile, Axios is reporting that Tehran is considering proposing “an interim nuclear agreement before pursuing negotiations over a comprehensive deal,” according to sources. A 2013 interim deal led to the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and helped build trust. It would also buy time for tehran due to Trump’s two-month deadline and snapback, but that would mean the expiration of the snapback mechanism itself (X). (READ BELOW)
If talks fall apart, Trump said on April 10 that Israel would lead in a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US president specifically said, “Israel will obviously be very much involved in that—it’ll be the leader of that. But nobody leads us. We do what we want to do.” (Times of Israel) The comments apparently caught the Israelis by surprise, as they had expected the Trump administration to head such a mission.
WHAT ABOUT SNAPBACK? The E3—Britain, France, and Germany—were unaware of the talks in Oman, though they play a key role in snapping back United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions on Iran (Reuters).
But as the New York Times points out:
“…the space for talking is narrow, European officials and analysts say, because by the end of July, the Europeans must signal whether they will reimpose punishing United Nations sanctions against Iran. The option to reimpose those sanctions, which were lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal, will expire on Oct. 18… The Europeans want to decide before Russia, increasingly an ally of Iran, takes over the presidency of the Security Council for the month of October.”
There’s been a lot of talk of Europe reimposing sanctions in June or July (though Reuters reports it’s June), to which Iranians said they would consider “harsh consequences and a review of its nuclear doctrine.”
۲/2 Argentina seeks arrest of Supreme Leader for 1994 Jewish center bombing
۳/3 Executions at 10-year high in Iran
۴/4 Hardline daily reprimanded over Trump threat
۵/5 Vice president of parliamentary affairs fired over ‘lavish’ trip to Antarctica
۶/6 Directors of ‘My Favorite Cake’ sentenced to prison
۷/7 State Duma ratifies 20-year strategic partnership between Russia and Iran
OTHER اخبار/NEWS THAT MADE HEADLINES:
Human Rights
۰ Pregnant woman shot dead by husband in Kermanshah (IranWire)
۰Five more political prisoners hanged in Iran as use of death penalty to crush dissent surges (CHRI)
Domestic Issues
۰ Women’s basketball league players social media shut down over hijab (X)
۰Suicide in Iran egged on by social media hate (X)
Foreign Policy + Security
۰Former UK ambassador to Tehran to run marathon with former hostage. (JustGiving)
۰ France to sue Iran at International Court over detained citizens. (IranWire)
۰ Revolutionary Guards seize oil tanker in Persian Gulf (Iran International)
۰ Exclusive: Iran-backed militias in Iraq ready to disarm to avert Trump wrath (Reuters)
۰ Iran sends new missiles to Iraqi proxies that were said to be disarming – report (Times of Israel)
۰ Iran holds talks with Egypt on Gaza as it looks to improve ties to Cairo (Jerusalem Post)
Iran Deal + Sanctions
۰ Are B-2 bombers a message to Iran? ‘We’ll let them decide,’ Pentagon chief say (Reuters)
۰ Iran wants indirect talks with US, warns regional countries over strikes against it (Reuters)
۰ Ali Shamkhani talks deterrent measure if threats continue (X)
۰ Newspaper issues apology, halts operations after retracting Iran-US talks story (IranWire)
۰ Iran warns it may expel UN nuclear inspectors if threats persist (Bloomberg)
۰ Russia says bombing Iran will not work after Trump threats (Reuters)
۰ Iran’s expanded uranium mining hints at much bigger reserves (Bloomberg)