From Muscat to Rome: Iran, the U.S., and the Quest for a Stable Agreement

By IndraStra Global Editorial Team

Cover Image Attribute: This handout picture provided by Khabar Online on April 12, 2025, shows Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (2nd-L) speaking with members of the Iranian delegation after a meeting in Muscat during nuclear talks with the US. 

Caught between history and brinkmanship, the United States and Iran now face a turning point in nuclear diplomacy—one that could either soothe old wounds or reopen them on a far more dangerous scale. As the two sides prepare for a second round of indirect talks in Rome on Saturday, the stakes could not be higher. The negotiations, mediated by Oman, follow a cautiously optimistic first round in Muscat. Still, the path to a lasting agreement remains fraught with mutual distrust, inflexible red lines, and the specter of military action. The international community, led by figures like Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), watches anxiously, aware that the outcome will reverberate far beyond the Gulf, potentially reshaping the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape in a way that has never been seen before.
At the heart of the talks is Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful but the West suspects is a covert effort to develop an atomic bomb. Since President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Iran has steadily breached the agreement’s limits, enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels of 60% purity and amassing a stockpile that Grossi has warned could be sufficient to build “not one but several bombs.” This escalation, a direct response to the reimposition of crippling U.S. sanctions, has heightened fears that Iran could be on the cusp of assembling a nuclear weapon, a scenario the U.S. has vowed to prevent at all costs. Trump, who has revived his “maximum pressure” campaign since returning to the White House in January, has been unequivocal: “I’m for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can’t have a nuclear weapon.” Yet, he has also expressed a desire for Iran to thrive, stating, “I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific,” suggesting room for compromise if both sides can bridge their differences.
For its part, Iran has approached the negotiations with a mix of pragmatism and skepticism. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, tasked with leading Tehran’s diplomatic efforts, has emphasized that an agreement is possible “if they demonstrate seriousness of intent and do not make unrealistic demands.” This cautiously hopeful tone reflects Iran’s willingness to accept some limits on its uranium enrichment, as a senior Iranian official revealed during the Oman talks. However, this flexibility comes with a non-negotiable condition: Iran demands “watertight guarantees” that the U.S. will not renege on a new deal, as Trump did in 2018. The collapse of the JCPOA, which had constrained Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief, left deep scars in Tehran, where distrust of U.S. intentions runs high. The official, speaking anonymously, highlighted Iran’s unyielding stance, dictated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Tehran will not dismantle its uranium-enriching centrifuges, halt enrichment entirely, or reduce its enriched uranium stockpile below the levels agreed in the 2015 deal. Nor will it entertain discussions about its missile program, which it views as a separate matter of national defense.
The U.S., meanwhile, has its own firm demands. Top negotiator Steve Witkoff has publicly stated that Iran must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment” to secure a deal, a position that appears to clash with Iran’s insistence on maintaining its enrichment capabilities. This divergence highlights the wide gap that persists between the two sides, despite their shared commitment to diplomacy. The contradictory signals emanating from Washington—ranging from Trump’s conciliatory rhetoric to hawkish statements by officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who declared that the U.S. “will never tolerate” Iran developing a nuclear weapon—have further muddied the waters. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, has called on the U.S. to clarify these “serious ambiguities” regarding its intentions, a demand that underscores the fragility of the trust needed to sustain negotiations, making the situation even more precarious.
The role of international mediators and observers is critical in this high-stakes environment. Oman, with its long-standing reputation as a neutral facilitator, has provided a vital channel for indirect talks, allowing Araqchi and Witkoff to engage without the political baggage of direct negotiations, which have not occurred since 2015. Russia, a signatory to the 2015 deal and a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, has also offered to play a supportive role. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has affirmed Moscow’s readiness “to assist, mediate and play any role that will be beneficial to Iran and the U.S.A.,” a commitment reinforced by Araqchi’s visit to Moscow to brief President Vladimir Putin on the talks. Iran’s outreach to Beijing further signals its intent to anchor the negotiations within a broader international framework, leveraging its alliances to counterbalance U.S. pressure.
The IAEA, under Grossi’s leadership, is another linchpin in the process. Grossi, who visited Tehran this week to meet with Iranian officials, including Mohammad Eslami of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has described the talks as being “in a very crucial stage.” His agency is likely to play a central role in verifying Iran’s compliance with any future agreement, a responsibility that carries immense weight given the technical and political complexities involved. Iran has signaled its willingness to cooperate with the IAEA, which it views as “the only acceptable body in this process,” to provide assurances that its nuclear work is peaceful. In return, Tehran expects the U.S. to lift sanctions on its oil and financial sectors, a demand that Araqchi reportedly conveyed during the Oman talks. However, Iran’s relationship with the IAEA has not been without friction. Since 2018, Tehran has disrupted IAEA surveillance cameras, barred some of the agency’s most experienced inspectors, and enriched uranium far beyond civilian needs, prompting Grossi to warn that Iran possesses “the pieces” of a nuclear “jigsaw puzzle” that could one day be assembled.
The broader geopolitical context adds further layers of complexity to the negotiations. The Middle East is already a tinderbox, with the Israel-Hamas war raging in Gaza and U.S. airstrikes targeting Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Saudi Arabia’s recent diplomatic overtures to Iran, exemplified by Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman’s historic visit to Tehran—the first by a Saudi defense minister since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—signal a regional desire to de-escalate tensions. Supreme Leader Khamenei, meeting with Prince Khalid, emphasized the value of regional cooperation, stating, “It is much better for brothers in the region to cooperate and support each other than to rely on outsiders.” This warming of ties, facilitated by a Chinese-mediated détente in 2023, could bolster Iran’s confidence in the nuclear talks by reducing its sense of regional isolation. However, Trump’s repeated threats to unleash airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails cast a long shadow. While he has tempered these warnings with expressions of restraint—“I’m not in a rush to do it because I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death”—the specter of military action remains a potent pressure tactic.
Grossi, keenly aware of these risks, has urged all parties to “concentrate on our objective,” arguing that a successful agreement would render such threats obsolete. “Once we get to our objective, all of these things will evaporate because there will be no reason for concern,” he told Iranian media. This optimism, however, is tempered by the recognition that time is short. Iran’s advancing nuclear capabilities, combined with the political volatility of a Trump administration, create a narrowing window for diplomacy. The IAEA chief’s call for urgency—“We know we don’t have much time”—reflects the precarious balance between hope and peril that defines the current moment.
For Iran, the negotiations represent both an opportunity and a gamble. A deal that lifts sanctions could revitalize its economy, which has been battered by years of isolation, while preserving its nuclear program as a symbol of national sovereignty. Yet, any misstep risks provoking U.S. retaliation, potentially plunging the region into conflict. The U.S., meanwhile, faces its own dilemma: how to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions without triggering a war or alienating allies who favor diplomacy. The involvement of the IAEA, Russia, and Oman, alongside Iran’s outreach to China and improving ties with Saudi Arabia, suggests that the international community is invested in averting a crisis. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric has called the talks “a good sign,” expressing hope that they will yield “a positive outcome which will see the lowering of tensions in the Gulf region, in the Middle East and between the two countries.”
As Araqchi and Witkoff prepare to engage through Omani mediators in Rome, the world holds its breath. The negotiations are a test of whether pragmatism can triumph over entrenched animosity, whether mutual concessions can outweigh inflexible demands. Iran’s insistence on preserving its nuclear capabilities, coupled with the U.S.’s determination to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, sets the stage for a complex and contentious dialogue. Yet, the constructive tone emerging from the Oman talks—and a mutual commitment to diplomacy—offers a measured glimmer of hope. If both sides can heed Grossi’s call to focus on the “possibility of a good outcome,” they may yet find a path to an agreement that ensures Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful while lifting the economic stranglehold of sanctions. The alternative—a descent into confrontation—would be a tragedy for Iran, the U.S., and the entire Middle East. The Rome talks, therefore, are not just a negotiation but a crucible, one that will determine whether the region moves toward stability or teeters on the brink of chaos.

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html