US seeks talks ...
Page 1
Third, the US wants to wrap up Middle East tensions quickly and shift its focus back to East Asia, where China remains its strategic concern. Fourth, with Russia refusing to engage in peace talks over Ukraine, Washington may feel compelled to continue backing Kyiv alongside Europe. Finally, domestic pressure is mounting and US public opinion has little appetite left for Trump’s confrontational foreign policy.
Altogether, these factors might have led Trump to conclude that it’s time to take a more constructive line on Iran. Therefore, it’s quite possible that the new message carries a different tone from the one sent two months before the war.
On the Iranian side, things have also evolved: first, Iran endured the 12-day war without collapsing. Second, contrary to some expectations, the public didn’t rise up against the Establishment, but instead, they largely closed ranks around it. Third, Iran’s missile strikes against Israel were forceful, fourth, the country quickly rebuilt parts of its military capability, finally, resistance groups previously thought to be crippled are reorganized.
All of this suggests that the pressure campaign failed to produce the outcome Washington had hoped for. Hence, the US might now believe it’s better to approach Iran from another angle, avoiding a scenario in which Tehran moves deeper into the orbit of China or Russia.
Given Iran’s insistence on its previous positions, how do you see the prospects for a new round of talks between Tehran and Washington? How likely is success this time?
Iran has shown flexibility in the past and could display it again within the same parameters. True, it was the US and Israel that upended the table by attacking Iranian targets, but Tehran may still show signs of openness in certain areas.
That’s because both sides need an honorable way back to the table. If Washington tries to dictate terms, Tehran will reject them outright; and if Iran’s demands go beyond reasonable expectations, the US will walk away.
In essence, compromise only comes when both players hit a dead end and scale back their demands. Negotiations can only move forward if there’s genuine political will and good faith. Otherwise, it’s just “talks for the sake of talks.”
If talks do resume, will Oman continue to act as a mediator?
Most likely, yes. Both Iran and the United States prefer that, if direct negotiations don’t take place, Oman remains the venue and facilitator.
Should Tehran and Washington resume dialogue, how do you think Israel would respond? Is there a chance Tel Aviv could resort to military or covert action to derail the process?
Israel’s moves are entirely in line with US policy. Over the past couple of years, no Israeli operation has been carried out without American coordination. Whether it’s attacks on Iran, airstrikes in Gaza, or actions in Qatar, all are greenlit by Washington and CENTCOM in the Persian Gulf. So, if the US gives Israel a green light, it will act; if it shows a red one, Israel won’t lift a finger.