Insights from the Oman Negotiations: Guarantees as the Foundation for Any New Agreement
By Latifa Al-Husseini
Lebanon — Why did American and Iranian negotiators describe their meeting in Oman as positive and productive? And did the initial round truly signal a turning point toward a compromise acceptable to both parties?
Most observers agree that the indirect negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic in Oman were successful. This shift is largely attributed to a noticeable de-escalation in Washington’s tone—a significant departure from the aggressive rhetoric and threats that preceded the talks.
According to Dr. Hakam Amhaz, an expert in Iranian affairs familiar with the meetings held in separate rooms with the Gulf mediator, the prevailing atmosphere leaned toward de-escalation. Still, he noted that the upcoming rounds—though potentially time-consuming—could either pave the way for a formal agreement backed by strong guarantees or be derailed by technical complications.
In contrast to President Donald Trump’s claims, Amhaz told Al-Ahed News that Iran succeeded in imposing its terms during Saturday’s meeting. Tehran also thwarted American attempts to broaden the agenda, insisting that the discussions remain centered on the nuclear file. The focus was on setting a comprehensive framework for the upcoming negotiation stage and establishing a highly technical agenda that addressed issues such as heavy water, centrifuge usage, uranium enrichment levels, transparency mechanisms, and inspection protocols.
Three Weeks of Groundwork in Oman
According to Amhaz, thorough groundwork enabled the outcome and facilitated the scheduling of a follow-up session. For three consecutive weeks before the April 12 meeting, mid-level delegations from Tehran and Washington—led by deputy foreign ministers—engaged in indirect talks at a royal palace in Oman. These talks laid the foundation and shaped the agenda for Saturday’s meeting.
Guarantees to Safeguard a New Deal
With the first round concluded, a key question looms: If a new agreement is reached, what will prevent the US from withdrawing once again?
According to Amhaz, Iran is demanding binding assurances from the US to avoid a repeat of previous collapses. Several mechanisms are under discussion:
- Congressional Ratification: Transforming the agreement into a treaty ratified by both houses of Congress would make it more difficult for a future president, such as Trump, to revoke it.
- Major US Investments in Iran: Encouraging large-scale US investments in Iran’s oil and gas sectors could create powerful economic lobbies that would support and protect the agreement. This proposal remains under review by Iran.
- Retention of Enrichment Capabilities: Rather than exporting enriched uranium and centrifuges abroad—as in the previous deal—Iran seeks to store them domestically under joint supervision, with the right to reopen storage facilities in case of violations, without requiring IAEA approval.
- Reopening the US Embassy in Tehran: While still remote, the option remains on the table. Imam Khomeini once stated that "enmity exists only with 'Israel'," suggesting that a diplomatic mission might be acceptable—provided it respects Iranian sovereignty and confines its role to bilateral relations.
- Enhanced Transparency: Iran could increase transparency by installing more surveillance cameras at its nuclear facilities and allowing more frequent inspections to alleviate concerns about weaponization.
Progress Will Take Time
Amhaz emphasizes that progress hinges on mutual steps, and a breakthrough won’t happen overnight. The next round will be technical, focusing on detailed nuclear issues rather than political ones. “The devil is in the details,” he said, especially regarding "Israel" and other regional players who are wary of any agreement.
Signs of US Seriousness
Amhaz remains cautiously optimistic about the prospects for a deal. He believes Washington is committed to continuing negotiations until the end. He referenced a letter from Trump to Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei as evidence. In it, Trump signaled a willingness to make concessions, writing that the United States “under my leadership, is ready to take a major step towards peace and regional settlement with Iran.” He also acknowledged Iran’s strength and influence, stating: “Peace is made by the strong, not the weak.” Perhaps most telling was how "Israeli" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was sidelined—noticeably excluded during their joint White House press conference.
Red Lines That Could Derail Talks
Despite the progress, clear red lines remain that could jeopardize future rounds—whether at the ministerial or expert level. According to Amhaz, any attempt to curtail Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, freeze its nuclear progress, weaken its military, or undermine its regional alliances could unravel the entire process.
