Trump's decision to quit the treaty and reimpose stringent sanctions prompted Iran to restart its nuclear project, leading to a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent—a level beyond what is required for civilian purposes but short of weapons-grade material

By Ajish P Joy 

The Week

The United States and Iran concluded the initial round of peace talks on April 12, intended to stop the weaponisation of Tehran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Mediated by Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, the discussions held in the Omani capital Muscat saw the participation of Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff. Iranian and American diplomats have used Omani as a neutral negotiating territory for decades. Both sides described the talks as constructive and respectful, and are planning to meet again on April 19. They expressed a commitment to reach an  agreement at the earliest.

Iran-US relations have been marked by tensions and mutual distrust, with the last major rupture coming after Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers. The situation was further complicated by the US plan to assassinate key Iranian generals.

The JCPOA had imposed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump's decision to quit the treaty and reimpose stringent sanctions prompted Iran to restart its nuclear project, leading to a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent—a level beyond what is required for civilian purposes but short of weapons-grade material. The International Atomic Energy Agency has expressed its inability to effectively monitor Iran’s nuclear programme, as Iran curtailed access to key nuclear sites and disabled surveillance cameras.

Although Iran has repeatedly claimed that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes, the US has expressed scepticism, with Trump himself warning that he will not let Iran develop a nuclear weapon. The US and its close ally, Israel, have also been worried about Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, though these issues were not taken up in Muscat.

The talks were indirect, with al-Busaidi shuttling between the two delegations, who remained in separate rooms. The indirect format was one of the preconditions set by Tehran, which did not want direct talks with sanctions in place. It is yet another reminder of the lingering impact of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, after which the two countries broke off formal diplomatic relations.

Still, both Iran and the US described the atmosphere in Muscat as cordial and positive. Araghchi, a seasoned diplomat with extensive experience in nuclear negotiations, including the JCPOA, said the talks were “constructive” and conducted in a “calm and respectful environment”. Neither side engaged in unnecessary rhetoric, and both demonstrated a genuine wish to avoid prolonged, fruitless discussions. In fact, the meeting was over in about 90 minutes. Witkoff, a real estate billionaire with no prior diplomatic experience, but remains a trusted Trump aide, described the talks as “positive and constructive”. In fact, there was a brief, informal exchange between Araghchi and Witkoff at the end of the session.

Al-Busaidi, meanwhile, expressed happiness for the opportunity to facilitate the peace talks and said that Oman looked forward to a “fair and binding agreement” between the two countries. He spoke of the friendly atmosphere as conducive to bridging differences and fostering regional and global stability.

The initial talks were not intended to achieve something substantial. It was clear that both parties wanted to establish a framework and agenda for future negotiations. Iranian officials, speaking anonymously, indicated that their country was prepared to scale down uranium enrichment and permit IAEA monitoring. However, they firmly objected to any demand to give up the nuclear programme entirely. Some Trump officials like National Security Adviser Michael Waltz have previously called for complete dismantlement of Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, but Witkoff was more pragmatic, going with the JCPOA spirit to limit, rather than eliminate, Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

However, a major issue both parties will have to address somewhere down the line would be Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which could be enough to produce several nuclear bombs with further enrichment. The next round of talks might address this concern and reinstate robust inspection mechanisms. IAEA’s Director General Rafael Grossi is expected to visit Iran soon, though it remains unclear whether his efforts will align with the US negotiating team.

Clearly for the US, and it's staunch ally Israel, stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority. “I want Iran to be a wonderful, great, happy country, but they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters on April 11 aboard Air Force One. The president, bruised from his tariff battles and stalled efforts to broker peace in Gaza and Ukraine, is perhaps eyeing a win with Tehran.

Iran, meanwhile, faces grave economic challenges that might push it towards a deal. The economy is in freefall, with the rial plummeting against the dollar. There is rampant inflation and the people are unhappy about frequent power cuts, although Iran has vast oil and gas reserves. President Masoud Pezeshkian, a reformist who favours engagement with the West, has supported negotiations to revive the economy, even suggesting that American investors could play a role in Iran, perhaps trying to appeal to Trump’s transactional instincts.

Both sides, meanwhile, remain wary about domestic pressures that could complicate the way forward. Pezeshkian’s push for peace has angered the hardliners, including sections within the parliament and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s inner circle. In fact, Khamenei had publicly questioned the wisdom of negotiating with Trump, calling it neither “rational” nor “honourable.” However, the foreign ministry and Pezeshkian seems to have persuaded the supreme leader that talks were essential to keep the regime afloat, especially following the setbacks Iran faced in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. There is also the threat of Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which Trump has hinted that he might greenlight unless Iran sued for peace. Israel has already fired a warning shot. “The deal with Iran is acceptable only if the nuclear sites are destroyed under US supervision,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of the talks. “Otherwise, the military option is the only choice.”

With the successful conclusion of the first round of talks,  pressure for direct negotiations will grow now. Iranians are also concerned about possible American demands to completely halt uranium enrichment or break off ties with regional allies, which they view as going against national interests.

In the US, the oversized role Witkoff is playing has raised eyebrows, especially as he lacks technical expertise in nuclear disarmament. However, Trump’s trust in Witkoff’s judgement appears unflinching at the moment, and the ability he has demonstrated to maintain a constructive dialogue with a longtime adversary indicates that he may be effective in this role. Trump must also keep in mind potential spoilers, such as Israel, which has a history of covert operations against Iran’s nuclear programme. Such provocative actions could derail the talks, as seen four years ago.

The decision to reconvene the talks a week later signals cautious optimism, and observers are looking at a possible framework to prevent Iranian weaponisation in exchange for sanctions relief. Significant hurdles, however, remain. The next round must tackle complex technical issues, such as enriched uranium and the restoration of IAEA oversight. Both sides will be thoroughly tested, especially if hardliners in Iran or hawkish voices in the US push back against the deal. External factors, including Israel’s actions and the broader Middle East dynamics, could also disrupt the fragile progress.