Muscat Talks: Iran Negotiates with Confidence, Washington Reassesses in Light of Tehran’s Firm Stance
By Mostafa Awada
Lebanon – In a diplomatic scene laden with regional and international implications, the third round of indirect talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States concluded on Saturday in the Omani capital, Muscat. Mediated by Oman, these negotiations unfolded amid significant anticipation.
Held in the context of mounting regional tensions, this round represented a new milestone in the protracted negotiations over Iran’s nuclear file. It was described as the most detailed yet in technical terms, with experts from both sides participating.
While Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi expressed relative satisfaction with the negotiation process, he acknowledged the presence of serious disagreements—underscoring the complexity of a strategic issue that transcends technicalities and lies at the heart of the geopolitical conflict between Iran’s sovereignty and America’s hegemonic ambitions.
Mojtaba Ferdosipour, Director of Middle Eastern Studies at Iran’s Foreign Ministry, emphasized: “The Islamic Republic of Iran enters these indirect negotiations with the United States from a position of strength and resolve—not weakness or hesitation—relying on a long history of struggle and accumulated challenges, during which it has consistently honored the commitments of the 2015 nuclear deal, even after the US’s unilateral withdrawal.”
In an interview with Al-Ahed website, Ferdosipour stated, “Tehran is approaching these Omani-mediated negotiations with a new spirit—grounded, rational, and shaped by years of experience confronting Western arrogance. Iran’s strategic resilience has forced the US back to the negotiating table.”
He noted that despite Washington’s aggressive rhetoric, signs of flexibility and realism have emerged, particularly after the failure of its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign and the growing realization that military confrontation with Iran would risk engulfing the entire region.
Ferdosipour added, “We all witnessed how US President Donald Trump, who once mocked the nuclear deal and called it the worst in history, was ultimately compelled to engage with the Iranians. His threats were shattered by Iran’s steadfastness. He had to acknowledge that the Islamic Republic is not a nation that can be bullied or deceived with hollow promises.”
Explaining Washington’s apparent retreat, Ferdosipour cited several factors—chief among them Iran’s decisive messages from its highest leadership levels, including the Foreign Minister and senior military commanders. These messages, combined with growing international recognition of Iran’s formidable defensive capabilities, made it impossible for the US to ignore Iran’s terms.
He also pointed out that Iran insisted on indirect negotiations with Oman as the intermediary—an approach the US ultimately had to accept—leading to this third round of talks.
On the content of the discussions, Ferdosipour clarified that the focus remains solely on the nuclear issue and has not yet expanded to include regional concerns. He noted that future rounds would tackle technical matters such as uranium enrichment levels and the number of centrifuges.
A Shift in the Regional Landscape
Discussing regional reactions, Ferdosipour observed that Arab states—which had previously adopted a wait-and-see approach—are now welcoming the negotiations and calling for their continuation. This shift is evident in concrete developments, such as the Saudi Defense Minister’s visit to Tehran and his meeting with the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution—an encounter that would have been unthinkable without a change in Arab attitudes toward Iran.
He stressed that Iran’s sincere discourse, policy of outreach, and principles of good neighborliness have helped restore trust—especially with Saudi Arabia—leading to de-escalation on several fronts and opening the door to meaningful dialogue for regional stability.
Ferdosipour continued, “Iran, with its ancient civilization and significant geopolitical weight, cannot be sidelined. Any attempt to undermine it would risk setting off a regional explosion—a reality well understood by decision-makers in many capitals. That’s why we now hear explicit statements from Gulf countries rejecting the use of their territory for military action against Iran—positions that weaken the Zionist enemy’s hopes of provoking a regional war.”
The Zionist Entity: The Biggest Loser
When asked about the Zionist entity’s stance on the negotiations, Ferdosipour asserted that “Israel” perceives any US-Iran understanding as a direct threat to its destabilizing influence in the region. A deal would mark the end of its ability to manipulate international decisions to its advantage.
Ferdosipour added that Netanyahu’s repeated efforts to push the US into a direct military confrontation with Iran have failed, leaving him deeply frustrated. Meanwhile, Tehran has established new realities on the ground, reshaping the balance of deterrence.
He explained that while the Zionist regime continues to manufacture security concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, it seeks to impose the "Libyan model" on Iran—meaning complete dismantlement of its peaceful nuclear capabilities. However, this plan has been decisively thwarted by Iran’s unwavering stance and strategic calculations.
The Nuclear Issue: Peaceful in Nature, While the Zionist Threat Remains
He concluded, “Although Iran is falsely accused of seeking nuclear weapons, the real threat to regional security is the Zionist entity—the only nuclear-armed actor in the region outside international oversight, openly threatening to use its arsenal against our peoples. Shouldn’t its nuclear facilities be subject to scrutiny? Isn’t it time for an Arab initiative calling for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region, starting with ‘Israel’?”
Ferdosipour wrapped up his interview with Al-Ahed by affirming, “The Islamic Republic of Iran, which has repeatedly committed to keeping its nuclear program peaceful, is now negotiating from a position of legitimacy—not submission. Any attempt to compromise its sovereignty will be met with a decisive and devastating response.”
