SAEDNEWS: Majid Takht-Ravanchi’s Short, ‘Successful’ Trip to Oman Sparks Speculation of a Washington Message via Muscat—Iranian Sources Deny It; Tehran Ready to Negotiate on Equal Terms but Rejects Conditions Like 60% Uranium Delivery and Missile Range Cuts
According to Saed News’ political service, Farhikhtegan reported:
Oman’s historical role as a mediator in indirect talks between Iran and the United States means that any contact between Iranian and Omani officials is often interpreted through the lens of speculation about the indirect negotiations with Washington, rather than analyzed solely as bilateral interactions. The recent visit of Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs, to Oman is no exception. Takht-Ravanchi described the trip on the social media platform X as “short” but “successful.” Oman’s Foreign Minister also expressed pleasure at meeting the Iranian official, stating that both sides discussed bilateral relations and ways to strengthen them, as well as exchanged views on regional and international developments. Badr Al-Busaidi emphasized that both parties stressed the importance of resolving differences through dialogue and peaceful means. By using the phrase “resolving differences through dialogue,” Oman’s foreign minister—whose country has traditionally played a mediating role in Iran-US talks—signals its readiness to facilitate a new negotiation table following the 12-day war imposed on Iran. His recent visit to Tehran likely had a similar purpose.
Iran has consistently emphasized diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving issues. However, after the US “dropped a bomb” on the negotiation table, blocking any indirect paths, it now seeks to blame Iran for failed talks while attempting to revive the exhausted snapback mechanism to continue conditioning Iran’s economic environment. Given this approach, it is clear that returning to repeated channels will yield nothing but repeated outcomes.
Reports on Takht-Ravanchi’s visit to Oman immediately sparked media speculation. A regional outlet cited what it described as diplomatic sources in Tehran, claiming that Iran received a message from former US President Donald Trump via Oman about resuming nuclear talks. Baghdad Al-Youm reported: “Diplomatic sources in Tehran revealed that the United States sent a message to Iran via the Sultanate of Oman regarding the possibility of resuming nuclear talks, which had been halted since last June.”
Despite these speculations, a domestic outlet citing an informed source denied that any message had been sent: “Such news is not true.” The source emphasized that no such message had been received and that the reports lacked credibility. The denial came amid Takht-Ravanchi’s visit and meetings with Omani officials, which had fueled the speculation. Given Oman’s mediation history, such claims were predictable; however, the official denial indicates that Iran is unwilling to accept narratives that discuss negotiations without addressing the US’s unacceptable conditions. Negotiations under impossible conditions would serve only to accuse Iran of opposing dialogue.
The US aims, through such news-making, to revive a “spent” negotiation tool and tie public perception to every negotiation-related report. The outcome is that any halt in talks imposes economic uncertainty on Iran, maintaining the effectiveness of sanctions as leverage.
Iran’s Foreign Minister has consistently stressed the country’s readiness for sincere, mutually respectful dialogue. Within this framework, Seyed Abbas Iraqchi recently stated: “Although we have consistently approached talks sincerely and opened paths, we do not trust the US and will not, but even without trust, careful engagement is possible.” He added: “We have repeatedly said that if the Americans are ready to negotiate on equal terms with a sincere approach for a mutually beneficial—not one-sided—agreement, based on mutual respect, we have never abandoned diplomacy.” These remarks were made without confirming the alleged message from the US and aim to counter the false US narrative portraying Iran as unwilling to negotiate. The US seeks through such narratives to justify its mistake in engaging directly with Iran during the recent 12-day war.
In an interview with Qatar’s Al Jazeera, Iraqchi stated that Iran is ready to negotiate to address concerns about its nuclear program and assures its peaceful nature. He clarified that Iran does not seek direct talks with Washington but could reach an agreement through indirect negotiations. He emphasized the possibility of a fair agreement but noted that Washington has imposed unacceptable conditions.
According to Farhikhtegan, one of the US’s unacceptable demands involves handing over Iran’s 60% enriched uranium to the US in exchange for only a six-month suspension of snapback, rather than its removal. A second demand requires Iran to reduce missile range to below 500 kilometers, keeping Israel out of Iranian missile reach. These demands come despite the 12-day war showing US and Israeli eagerness to attack Iran—an ambition neutralized by Iran’s defensive capabilities, particularly in missile technology. Surrendering these power levers would amount to “pulling the teeth of resistance.” Countries that have complied with such disarmament, like Libya, provide a cautionary example.
While Iran prepared for a sixth round of indirect talks, the US escalated militarily, dropping a “bomb” on the negotiation table. Following the failure of its military strategy, Washington returned to sanctions, attempting through the snapback mechanism to force Iran to relinquish leverage. Demands for 60% uranium delivery, snapback suspension, and missile reductions reflect what the US could not achieve militarily, now pursued politically.
Iran has weathered the psychological pressure of snapback, and Eastern powers have refused to recognize it. The US now seeks to revive snapback by gaining control of Iran’s enriched uranium and re-impose conditionality on Iran’s economy. Iraqchi’s statements to Qatari media aim to counter narratives of blame and prevent a return to economic conditioning. He stressed that Iran will never negotiate its missile program and will not accept disarmament. Uranium enrichment cannot be halted, and what was not achieved through war cannot be achieved through diplomacy. While Iran avoids direct talks with Washington, indirect negotiations remain possible.
Iraqchi further stated that nuclear materials remain under the rubble of bombed facilities and were not moved elsewhere. While the buildings and nuclear equipment suffered damage, the technology remains intact. These comments respond to IAEA Director Rafael Grossi, who has repeated demands for inspections of damaged Iranian facilities to account for enriched uranium. Grossi emphasized the importance of tracking nuclear material to continue the inspection process. Iraqchi’s response reflects Iran’s stance against IAEA pressure, emphasizing the protection of its nuclear technology and rejecting inspectors’ return to damaged sites.
Oman has often served as a channel for indirect Iran-US communication; however, the 12-day war tested its effectiveness and rendered it unproductive for Iran. While diplomatic exchanges may benefit bilateral relations, they cannot alter the fundamental conditions for negotiations with the US. Military imposition and post-war unacceptable demands undermine the relevance of intermediary states like Oman, since the opposing party’s intent and motivation must be assessed before appointing a mediator. US military and political escalation provides clear evidence of its lack of willingness to engage constructively.
