SAEDNEWS: "It was clear from the beginning that the path of negotiations would be accompanied by numerous challenges, and this process would proceed with many ups and downs."
According to SAEDNEWS, international affairs expert Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh commented on the reasons behind the delay in Iran-U.S. negotiations, saying:
“From the very beginning, it was evident that the negotiation process would be fraught with challenges and would proceed with many ups and downs.”
What mattered most to Trump was presenting the opening of talks with Iran as one of the achievements of his administration's first 100 days.
As soon as the agreement regarding the exploitation of Ukraine's mineral resources was signed, new issues were introduced into the Iran negotiations, and Trump took new positions—positions that effectively eliminated the conditions necessary for launching a new round of talks.
One of the most significant developments was Iran agreeing to enter negotiations that were being conducted under the framework of "maximum pressure." Later, the Americans added a new layer of pressure: military threats.
Although U.S. military forces were already present in the region, it was the first time that the U.S. Secretary of Defense explicitly threatened that a military action against Iran could occur if the negotiations failed.
This threat led Iran to feel that the negotiations were no longer just under the shadow of economic pressure but now also included military intimidation. This was one of the reasons for the delay in initiating the next round of negotiations.
Meanwhile, external actors also played their roles. Certain third parties are actively trying to influence the course of negotiations.
The Europeans are aware that the U.S. holds the snapback mechanism and are trying to extract concessions from both sides—Iran and the U.S.—in return.
On the other hand, Israel is aiming to launch even a limited military strike on Iran before any agreement is reached, in order to destabilize the situation and weaken Iran's position in the negotiations.
Since the outbreak of the war on October 7, Israel has sought to undermine Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities to influence the negotiations.
Trump’s concern is also noteworthy; he fears that if military conflict ensues, the diplomatic path will be permanently closed.
All of these factors indicate that diplomats are operating under conditions akin to walking through a minefield, where they could face new threats at any moment.
As long as Iran and the U.S. do not break free from their taboos, reaching an agreement will not be possible. Both sides need to approach the situation more realistically.
While figures like Marco Rubio and Donald Trump adopt hardline stances against Iran to please American war hawks—constantly altering the negotiation agenda—all components of Iran’s foreign policy should not simply remain spectators at the Oman negotiation table.
Iran must play a more active role in shaping a regional security mechanism. Only through such a role can the portrayal of Iran as a threat be diminished and Israel be pushed into isolation.
It is essential for other branches of the Iranian government to go beyond merely observing and actively contribute to reducing the pretexts for threatening Iran. Only in this way can a stable environment for negotiations and peace in the region be achieved.
