As the stage is set for potential nuclear negotiations in Oman, the unfolding drama between President Donald Trump’s administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran has less to do with logistics and more to do with leverage. The apparent discrepancy over whether the talks will be direct or indirect is not a miscommunication—it’s a deliberate maneuver in a long chess game that has defined U.S.-Iran relations for decades.
The U.S. envoy, Stever Witkoff, is expected to arrive in Oman this Saturday, possibly meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. But Tehran’s insistence on indirect talks highlights the regime’s reluctance to appear as though it’s capitulating.
According to Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, this very public dispute is part of what he calls the “negotiations before the negotiations.” Both sides are playing to their own domestic and international audiences, each one trying to tilt the optics in their favor before even arriving at the table.
From Washington’s side, the drive to engage directly with Tehran is about demonstrating dominance—about being the power that forced Iran to the table. From Tehran’s side, any whiff of direct engagement with Trump risks projecting weakness, especially given the regime’s long-standing contempt for the former president. The memory of Soleimani’s assassination still lingers, along with the scars of the maximum-pressure campaign that crippled Iran’s economy and isolated it on the world stage.
But Iran has adapted. With uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels and a rapidly advancing missile program, the Islamic Republic holds more cards than before. It has also drawn closer to Moscow and Beijing—two geopolitical counterweights to U.S. influence—making any attempt to isolate Iran more complicated.
Yet the U.S. isn’t without options. Ben Taleblu points out that America still commands formidable leverage—economic sanctions, U.N. snapback measures, and yes, military threats. Trump has made it clear: bomb threats are not off the table. While the expiration of JCPOA-era sanctions looms in October 2025, Washington’s window is narrowing, and so is Iran’s.
The current standoff isn’t just about uranium or missiles. It’s about image. It’s about who bends first. Iran, hoping to shield itself behind talks, knows that as long as diplomacy is in motion, Israel is less likely to act militarily. But Trump has countered that narrative, hinting that if push comes to shove, it will be Israel—not the U.S.—that makes the first strike.
☢️ Trump’s lead negotiator Steve Witkoff sits down in Oman on Saturday to begin negotiations over the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Former WH Iran nuclear expert @rich_goldberg explains what’s on the atomic table.
Highlights below.
Full Interview here:
📺 YouTube:… pic.twitter.com/LKN6fE9bgg
— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) April 8, 2025
Ultimately, as Ben Taleblu warns, the only way to truly neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat is through a multi-pronged strategy that extends beyond sanctions and negotiations. It involves undermining Iran’s regional influence, bolstering cyber capabilities, and being ready for the moment when the Iranian people themselves take to the streets once more.
This isn’t just a test of diplomacy. It’s a battle over perception, deterrence, and the enduring struggle for control in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
