As indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran commenced in Oman on April 12, aimed at charting a path forward on Tehran's nuclear program, a profound sense of pessimism emanates from the Iranian perspective. This stems from what is seen as a stark ultimatum delivered on the eve of the talks. According to reporting from Nournews, a senior Trump administration envoy, Steve Witkoff, articulated a hardline precondition that casts a long shadow over the potential for diplomatic progress.
Start of Negotiations or End of Diplomacy?
Witkoff's remarks to The Wall Street Journal immediately challenged the hope for a constructive dialogue. As reported by Nournews, he stated unequivocally that Washington's starting point for negotiations is the "complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program." This maximalist demand, voiced before the delegations even met, has been interpreted in Tehran not as an opening gambit for negotiation but as a potential dead end for diplomacy.
Witkoff's statement, "In my view, our position begins with dismantling Iran's nuclear program. That is our position today," suggests little deviation from the previous administration's "maximum pressure" campaign. While he hinted at potential flexibility, stating, "That doesn't mean there won't be other ways to find compromise," this was immediately undercut by a thinly veiled threat. This approach raises serious questions about the US intention, framing the Oman meeting less as a genuine opening for trust-building – which Witkoff claimed was the initial goal – and more as an imposition of non-negotiable terms. This imposition is a source of frustration for many.
US Nuclear Ultimatum to Tehran
As highlighted by Witkoff's warning, the US's stance is a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play: "If Iran refuses to dismantle its nuclear program, I will refer the matter to President Trump to determine how to proceed." This is perceived as a direct ultimatum, bypassing meaningful negotiation and leaning towards unilateral decision-making should Iran not capitulate. Furthermore, Witkoff stressed that any potential deal must contain "strict and detailed measures to ensure that no nuclear weapons are being produced," a point Iran maintains is already addressed through its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This demand, which disregards Iran's peaceful nuclear program, is an apparent injustice in the eyes of many.
From Tehran's perspective, this stance ignores fundamental realities. Iranian officials have consistently maintained, as Nournews reiterates, that the talks are strictly limited to the nuclear issue, must be indirect, and that its program is peaceful and under IAEA safeguards. Iran's unwavering commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a testament to its dedication to international norms. Iran insists it will not forfeit its rights under the NPT and rejects any negotiation conducted under duress, threats, or unilateral preconditions like complete dismantlement.
Nournews analysis points out the impracticality and illegitimacy of the demand for dismantling. Iran has achieved a level of "irreversible" self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle, making complete rollback technically unfeasible. Demanding it is seen not only as unrealistic but as a violation of international norms and Iran's NPT rights. Therefore, the US envoy's rhetoric appears less like a foundation for building confidence and more like a continuation of pressure tactics, forcing Washington to choose between its maximalist demands and a "strategic, phased approach" grounded in diplomatic reality. The talks begin under this cloud, with Tehran viewing the US position as a significant, perhaps insurmountable, obstacle to genuine progress.