Potential Iranian-American Negotiations and Their Regional Implications

Indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States resumed on Saturday, April 11, 2025, in the Sultanate of Oman, with some sources characterizing the talks as a “positive start.” This development marks a tentative first step forward after years of diplomatic impasse, although it remains deeply influenced by a longstanding legacy of mistrust and geopolitical tensions.
Since the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, bilateral relations have remained stagnant despite repeated efforts to revive the accord. Structural challenges on both sides and evolving regional and international dynamics continue to impede substantial progress.
A key hurdle in the negotiations is the U.S. demand for more stringent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran views its nuclear capabilities as a critical component of its national sovereignty and a key strategic asset. Tehran argues that concessions on this issue would undermine its regional position and internal cohesion. As such, Iran is unlikely to accede to the current U.S. demands, raising the prospect of further setbacks in the talks despite early positive indications.

In contrast, Iran is adopting a buying time strategy through continued talks, fully aware that it has lost significant leverage and no longer possesses decisive options in its favor, whether it continues negotiations or halts them. Tehran understands that the Western objective is no longer regime change or the promotion of “creative chaos”—which no longer benefits anyone—but rather limiting Iranian influence to adjust the regional balance of power. Iran is also counting on major international crises, such as the war in Ukraine and regional conflicts, to gain more time and maneuverability, allowing it to advance its nuclear program at a controlled pace without triggering a direct confrontation.
Despite its strong relationship with Iran, Russia is unlikely to be a reliable ally in this context. Moscow is focused on balancing its regional interests with its relations with the West and will not risk its economic and political stability by supporting Tehran in a direct confrontation with Washington. This stance only further isolates Iran internationally and weakens its negotiating position.
Iran’s current restraint regarding direct military escalation reflects its understanding of the significant risks involved. A direct confrontation with the U.S. would come at a high military and economic cost and could destabilize Iran internally. However, this caution does not imply the absence of indirect escalation tools, as Iran still maintains influence over armed factions in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, although these assets are gradually diminishing.
In this complex environment, the roles of other regional and international powers are crucial. Israel closely monitors developments and is preparing for all potential scenarios, including unilateral military action. Gulf countries, while concerned about potential instability, are focused on safeguarding their strategic interests with the U.S. without being drawn into an open confrontation. China, which is concerned with the stability of energy supplies, favors de-escalation and seeks to play an economic role while avoiding escalation. Meanwhile, the European Union is largely paralyzed due to internal divisions and its political dependence on the U.S.
The Iranian American negotiations stand at a pivotal crossroads, with deep divisions and multiple pressures. A bold diplomatic approach is required, one that emphasizes points of agreement, as political intransigence and the imposition of excessive conditions could lead to a darker future not only for Iran and the U.S. but for the entire region.
The U.S. Military Option: A Tactical maneuver or a Strategic Gamble?
With the diplomatic track seemingly blocked, certain American factions have begun to suggest the possibility of limited military action as a potential solution. While this option may appear attractive from a tactical standpoint, its strategic consequences could be severe. Iran is likely to respond with indirect measures, activating its remaining armed networks in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. Additionally, American interests across the Gulf region could be targeted, potentially destabilizing the region and threatening international trade.
Furthermore, this scenario could lead to an unprecedented rise in global oil and gas prices, which would have a negative impact on the global economy. More critically, resorting to military action could prompt Iran to accelerate its nuclear program and shift it toward a deterrent military path in response to what it perceives as an existential threat.
The regional environment is characterized by significant fragility and mutual apprehension.
A failure to reach diplomatic solutions could have wide-reaching consequences for all regional actors. Gulf countries—particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE—may expedite the development of their own deterrence programs to bolster their security. Israel may intensify its preemptive military and intelligence operations. Turkey, meanwhile, is likely to seize the opportunity to expand its regional influence in the face of instability. Non-state armed groups may also find new justifications for broadening and escalating their operations.
On the international front, China will seek to maintain the stability of energy supplies and expand its economic influence in Iran without directly engaging in conflict. The European Union, however, remains in a weak and indecisive position due to its heavy security reliance on the U.S. and internal divisions that limit its effectiveness.
Conclusion
Given these dynamics, the Iranian American negotiations are at a critical juncture. The deep divides in positions, compounded by internal, regional, and international pressures, make reaching a sustainable settlement exceedingly difficult. Therefore, a creative and bold diplomatic approach is essential—one that acknowledges differing interests while focusing on areas of convergence, rather than insisting on unattainable conditions. Political rigidity and the escalation of threats will only lead to a more violent and unstable future, both in bilateral relations and in
the broader stability
The original article is published on the White House in Arabic platform based in Washington

Transformations in the U.S.-Saudi Partnership: From Traditional Alliance to Strategic Interdependence