In early 2025, the United States and Iran returned to what Iranian officials insist are indirect negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program. And Oman is serving as a mediator. Tensions are high. President Donald Trump, now in his second term, has brought back his “maximum pressure” strategy— using strong sanctions and threatening statements. Iran, under major economic hardship, has continued enriching uranium to levels close to what’s needed for a nuclear weapon. Both sides have returned to the table, but their goals appear not only divergent but fundamentally misaligned. On the surface, diplomacy may seem active with their indirect talk at the same table. But underneath, the core problems remain.
This raises a central puzzle: If both parties expect any potential deal to be short-lived and fraught with mistrust—why engage in talks at all? What motivates a return to negotiation when the previous framework collapsed so decisively? Is this diplomacy aimed at resolution, or a strategic performance designed to shift blame and manage perceptions? Our piece examines what drives the current bargaining efforts and explores whether diplomacy in this case is truly aimed at peace—or merely a calculated pause in an ongoing confrontation.
From JCPOA to Muscat: Familiar Theatre, New Risks
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was more than a treaty—it was a high-wire act of multilateral diplomacy that managed to freeze the clock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. When Trump left the deal in 2018, he said it was flawed. He pointed to time limits in the agreement and its failure to cover Iran’s missile program and role in regional conflicts. After the U.S. withdrawal, Iran no longer felt bound by the deal. It began enriching uranium at a faster pace. By 2025, Iran had reached 60% purity. That level goes far beyond what is needed for civilian purposes and is close to the 90% needed for a nuclear weapon.
The new talks in Muscat may look similar to past negotiations, but the substance has changed. Trump wants Iran to completely shut down its nuclear program. Iran says it has the legal right to enrich uranium and won’t give that up. On the surface, it seems like a negotiation. In reality, each side is holding firm to views that directly oppose one another.
Trump’s Dual Game: Diplomacy or Display?
Trump’s renewed effort at brokering a deal is less about arms control and more about legacy. He is crafting a moment—a headline, a trophy—perhaps even a bid for the Nobel Peace Prize. But his approach remains characteristically blunt. Military threats pepper his diplomatic language. His message changes quickly. One day he talks about peace. The next day he threatens to use military force.
This inconsistency may not be a strategy—it may simply be confusion. For Iran, the constant shifts in U.S. behavior confirm a long-held belief: that America cannot be trusted. This view is shaped by painful experiences, including the 1953 coup that removed Prime Minister Mosaddegh. During President Khatami’s era, Iran tried to improve relations and was met instead with the ‘Axis of Evil’ label. Years of economic sanctions followed, as well as targeted assassinations of Iranian scientists. Iran has learned, through experience, not to expect continuity or goodwill from Washington.
Tehran’s Calculation: Resilience Framed as Resistance
Iran’s approach is shaped by both politics and religious ideas. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has compared the current talks with the U.S. to a temporary peace made by Imam Hasan in early Islamic history. That agreement was not a surrender but a pause taken for strategic reasons. By making this comparison, Khamenei sends a signal. He tells hardliners that a deal does not mean giving in. It also tells the public that negotiation can be part of resistance, not the end of it.
Tehran is not focused on reaching an agreement. Instead, it is getting ready for any result. If the talks fail, the government will say it stood firm. If the talks succeed, it will claim victory through patience and strength. Either way, the message at home stays consistent.
A Port in Flames: Signals and Suspicion
As the third round of talks opened in April, a massive explosion tore through Iran’s Shahid Rajaee port. Official reports blamed mismanagement of chemicals used in missile fuel. The timing, however, invited speculation. In a country long accustomed to covert attacks and cyber sabotage, coincidence rarely goes unchallenged.
While Iran stopped short of attributing blame, officials cited a heightened state of alert. The incident reinforced Iran’s sense of encirclement and vulnerability—feelings that echo through its negotiating posture. Whether the explosion was accidental or orchestrated, it supplied hardliners with a cautionary tale: that diplomacy might invite more danger than relief.
An Agreement No One Believes In
Even if a deal happens, it will likely be weak from the start. Trump does not trust international cooperation and prefers to act alone through executive orders. This means any agreement will be short-lived. It will not have support from both parties in Congress or the long-term backing of U.S. institutions.
Verification is another big problem. Iran has limited access to its nuclear sites. It says this is due to security concerns and past promises that were not kept. The U.S., on the other hand, does not seem eager to return to full inspections through the IAEA. Trust between the two sides has been badly damaged by years of secret attacks, broken deals, and ongoing tension.
At the heart of the issue is a deeper disagreement. The United States wants Iran to change how it behaves in the region. Iran, on the other hand, wants to be respected and treated as an equal. This is not just about technical details. It is a clash between two worldviews, two stories, and two ideas of power.
In the end, history shows that making a deal is often better than letting tensions grow. But it also shows that weak deals, based on shaky ground, usually fall apart. In this case, both the U.S. and Iran seem to be preparing for failure as much as for success.
This brings us back to the core puzzle: why are both the U.S. and Iran at the table if neither believes a deal will last? The answer lies more in appearances than in substance. For Trump, it is about showing leadership and boosting his image. For Iran, it is a way to appear open to diplomacy while standing firm on core principles. These talks are not about changing each other’s behavior. They are about controlling the narrative and preparing to claim victory—whether or not a deal is reached.
Trump may manage to reach a deal and present it as a success. But if it does not address the deep mistrust and power imbalance between the U.S. and Iran, it won’t mean much. It will be a short-term pause, not a step toward lasting peace. Something done under pressure, not true agreement. History shows that weak deals, made without trust or long-term vision, usually fall apart—and both sides already seem prepared for that outcome.
