U.S. engagement with Iran is complicated by internal disagreements and external pressures, despite the cordial interactions between negotiators.
Following an initial meeting in Muscat, Oman, a second round of U.S.-Iran nuclear discussions occurred in Rome last Saturday. While both parties initially described the talks as “constructive,” the Trump administration sent conflicting signals soon after. The possibility of a new nuclear agreement remained uncertain despite the encouraging atmosphere.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, known for his hawkish stance on Iran, set a strict precondition at the start of negotiations: Iran must dismantle its uranium enrichment program entirely for any deal with the U.S. However, after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, head of the U.S. delegation, offered a different perspective. He suggested in a Fox News interview that Tehran might be allowed to maintain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy uses, a position previously deemed unacceptable.
Witkoff stressed the need for rigorous verification procedures to prevent Iran from militarizing its nuclear capabilities, including oversight of missile technology. Conspicuously absent was any mention of “dismantlement.” This implied that the administration might be considering a modified return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump had abandoned in 2018, calling it a “disaster.”
However, this shift was short-lived. Witkoff backtracked the next day, reaffirming the demand for complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs on X. The reason for this sudden change in rhetoric is unclear.
According to Axios, Trump convened with top national security officials three days after the Muscat talks to reassess the U.S. strategy. During that meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth advocated for a pragmatic strategy. They cautioned that demanding the dismantling of Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure would derail the talks, as Iran had already rejected such extensive concessions. Vance even proposed that Washington should prepare for some compromise.
However, Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio represented a dissenting viewpoint. They contended that Iran’s current vulnerability provided the U.S. with a unique advantage that should not be wasted. They insisted that the U.S. should be prepared to take military action or approve Israeli action if Tehran did not comply with American demands.
This disagreement highlights a deeper strategic divide within the Trump administration. There is a large gray area between the maximalist view that Iran must be completely disarmed and the more adaptable stance that seeks to limit weaponization while allowing for peaceful enrichment. The absence of a clear message or consensus could put the U.S. at a disadvantage when negotiating with a skilled and coordinated Iranian team.
In essence, Trump is in a challenging position. He clearly wants to prevent military escalation. Sending Witkoff, who is known for his willingness to compromise, suggests a genuine preference for diplomacy over aggression. If hardliners had more influence in Washington, the second round in Rome would probably not have taken place.
On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously told reporters that the talks were progressing “very well” but cautioned that significant progress would take time. His words indicated a desire to remain flexible while recognizing the complexities and risks of negotiating with Tehran.
The Iranian side seems more optimistic. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the two sides found considerably more common ground in Rome compared to Muscat. His comments suggest that progress is being made and that real advancements may be imminent.
Araghchi’s travel plans also sparked interest. Before going to Rome, he stopped in Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He was said to be carrying a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which he described as “a message to the world.” The West noted the symbolism: the visit was widely seen as a public reaffirmation of the Moscow-Tehran alliance. Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor observed on X that any significant American military action against Iran would likely provoke a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic ally.
On the same day, President Putin signed a law ratifying a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran, further strengthening political and economic ties. Against the backdrop of delicate US-Iran negotiations, the Moscow-Tehran alliance appears more significant. With these growing connections, Washington may find it more difficult to exert unilateral pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, not everyone in Tehran is convinced of the negotiations’ merits. Many Iranian officials are still wary of Trump, whose choice to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018 still has a big impact. Their mistrust extends beyond Trump to a more general worry: that future US presidents may once again change course. If Obama’s agreements were dismantled by Trump, why couldn’t Trump’s agreements suffer the same fate?
Despite these tensions, major international media outlets have confirmed that two more rounds of negotiations are scheduled: one in Geneva next week and another in Oman the week after. The ongoing diplomatic activity indicates a shared interest in maintaining the dialogue. For the time being, both Trump’s restrained optimism and Iran’s cautious tone suggest that the risk of war has decreased, at least in the near future.
This de-escalation in rhetoric reflects a fundamental reality: despite lingering mistrust and domestic political pressures, both parties recognize the value of remaining at the negotiating table. You don’t have to be a policy expert to understand that. However, the mood in Israel is considerably more apprehensive. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has never hidden his skepticism about engaging with Iran, has denounced the talks. For Tel Aviv, negotiations risk weakening Tehran’s isolation and endangering Israel’s strategic position.
Still, Trump’s main concern is his legacy, not regional politics. He wants to be remembered as the president who prevented war and negotiated a deal that the American people can support. In that context, Netanyahu’s concerns may have to wait.