 "Round 1 in Oman, 2 in Rome: Can Trump fix the nuclear deal with Iran he broke in 2018? Here’s what expert says")
Last week, the United States and Iran concluded their first "indirect" nuclear talks and agreed to proceed with the negotiations. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described talks, held in the Omani capital of Muscat, as having been conducted in a “constructive atmosphere” and based on “mutual respect”.
The Iranian foreign ministry noted that the chief negotiators “spoke for several minutes in the presence of the Omani Foreign Minister while leaving the negotiations venue." While the concepts of “constructive talks” and “mutual respect” found emphasis in the Iranian language, the talks came days after US President Donald Trump used aggressive threats, asking Tehran to sit at the negotiation table.
Following the talks, Firstpost sat down with Seyed Emamian, Assistant Professor at Tehran Polytechnic University of Technology, and Co-founder of Governance and Policy Think Tank, to understand the current dynamic between the two nations and how Iran is looking at these talks.
Hopes & Concerns: Trump’s inner circle
While speaking to Firstpost, Prof. Emamian said there were hopes and concerns among the Iranian side about the talks due to Trump’s unconventional approach. “Trump has been someone who has accumulated that kind of distrust because of his very aggressive approach in the first term of his administration,” he said.
However, Prof. Emamian highlighted how Trump’s “polarised camp” or “inner circle” are taking an isolationist approach towards American foreign policy. “Trump’s team would be the most influential one concerning Iran. But it seems Trump himself and someone like Steve Whitkoff are from the, we call ‘America First’ part of the current administration. And you have seen that Trump has very skilfully ignored or to some extent bypassed his security advisor Mike Waltz, and Mark Rubio, his Secretary of State,” he explained.
“So it’s that Trump has been very much intelligent in sending a representative that has been very loyal to Trump himself and he’s going to make a deal,” the Iranian professor furthered. When it comes to Iran, Prof. Emamian emphasised that political activists and policymakers in Tehran are still "very pessimistic" about the talks and they have distrust towards the Trump administration.
Impact Shorts
More Shorts“I would say that almost there is no one in Iran who is thinking too optimistic about Trump. Not only because of the long history of the distrust between Iran and the US but also because of Iran’s bad experience with Trump during his first stint in the office,” he said.
However, the Iranian professor also spoke about the other side of the coin. There are some hopes, particularly with the appointment of Steve Witkoff and Trump’s very supportive approach toward the deal with Iran. We also need to think about Trump’s approach toward Iran as part of his approach toward Russia. It seems that Trump is going to come to kind of an agreement very soon with Iran and Russia to provide some evidence for his electoral promise of being a peaceful president," he told Firstpost.
“So I think that Trump needs to come across some kind of results very soon to show that he was someone that he has brought peace through very long conflicts, controversies or crises in the region, not only in the Middle East but in West Asia, also in Europe with Russian-Ukrainian crisis,” he added.
The Israel lobby
Prof. Emamian also noted how Israel had a strong influence on Iran-US ties. However, he stated that things are different this time. The Iranian professor went on to state that Trump is now very much “concerned about Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intervention in Trump’s policy.”
“Trump invited Netanyahu to the White House, and in front of him, Trump publicly announced to everyone his plan for something that had already been agreed between Iranians and the US delegation to meet in Muscat. Trump wanted to say directly to Netanyahu that it’s my policy, and that you should keep your distance from it. You are not going to be a negative player in that negotiation,” he said.
“I think it’s too early. We are not going to be too rushed to be optimistic more than realistic. But as I said before, there are hopes and concerns,” he added. Prof. Emamian also threw light on how Trump would be different from former US President Barack Obama, who signed the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015.
“Trump is much more open-handed with the deal with Iran. During Obama, 2015, he was very pressurised by the Republicans in Congress. The Republican congressmen were just in favour of the Israeli lobby,” he said. “But now Trump is the main one within the Republican camp. So Israel doesn’t have such kind of leverage to pressure Trump from within the US. So it would be much more open-handed for Trump,” he furthered.
Why Iran insisted on ‘indirect talks’
One of the main questions raised before the talks between the delegates was why Tehran insisted that both nations hold indirect talks first. Prof. Emamian laid out two reasons Iran chose this approach: 1) Iran’s distrust of the Trump administration and 2) Trump’s frequent threats.
“Yes, there were at least two reasons that have been publicly talked about or discussed. First of all, it was a kind of a sign of mistrust. Yes, we are going to reflect on the previous experience that Trump made it a failure in 2018,” he told Firstpost.
“There was a message from Iranians to the US delegation that the reason that we are very much insisting on having indirect talks rather than direct talks is because you have threatened us for military intervention. Once you continue to threaten us, even very marginal threats, but you are talking about military intervention option as something on the table, we are not going to treat you directly.”
“If they [US] are going to continue being respectful, they are not going to use any aggressive language of using military intervention as part of their plan. So Iran is ready. I think that Iran doesn’t have a problem having direct talks similar to what happened in 2015 with John Kerry and Obama’s delegation,” he added.
Back to square one
In 2018, Trump took the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal or Iran Deal. The deal was signed by Obama in 2015. Trump’s recent insistence on signing a brand new deal with Iran makes many wonder if Iran and the US are at the same place they were in 2015.
Prof. Emamian emphasised that given the current geopolitical situation, every nation is seeking “short-term agreements”. “Actually, I would say we are living in a time where there is no deep trust between societies, countries or political systems. We are living in a time when everyone is thinking about short-term agreements rather than long-term strategy agreements,” he said.
“There is a very famous argument, that Trump came out from the JCPOA, not because of JCPOA’s content, but because the deal was signed by Obama. So let’s come across to some kind of agreement with the Trump administration. After that, we need to think about the next session, and what would happen afterwards. Hopefully, if Trump comes to an agreement, no Democrat president will withdraw from that,” he added. However, he also raised alarm about American lawmakers to the likes of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who he claims are more aggressive on Iran.
Expectations from round 2
Prof Emamian reiterated that for round 2, which will take place in Rome, there is a wide range of expectations in Iran but little optimism about the talks. “As I said, someone like Steve Witkoff is going to represent Iran, he is going to use respectful language, and he is going to, to some extent, be more realistic with regards to the content of the deal, just containing or limiting the expectation towards preventing Iran from getting access to nuclear weaponization,” he said.
“As long as they are very much careful about not letting Netanyahu and Israelis get in, play a bad role, or interrupt the negotiation by any kind of aggressive operation or violent policies, then something can be materialised,” the Iranian professor told Firstpost.
Emphasising how Trump has “intelligently” limited the talks to nuclear weaponisation, Prof. Emamian noted that Iran’s defence doctrine was never built upon nuclear weaponisation and that Tehran would be okay as long as its civilian nuclear program is not getting affected.
3 Hs and the challenges that come with it
One of Washington’s biggest points of contention with Iran is Tehran’s support to militant groups like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthis in Yemen. When asked if Tehran’s alliances can pose a hindrance in talks with Washington, Prof. Emamian said that the discussion between the two nations is only limited to a nuclear deal.
“Iran has been very keen, very clear about the negotiation that is only
about the nuclear programme. They are not going to talk about anything else, including Iran’s regional policy. Like other regional powers, Iran has its regional policies and its allies. Iran has been very keen not to use the word of the proxy. They are allies, independent allies,” he said.
“They are very much concerned about their own interests, national interests, and sovereignty. So as long as, for example, Hezbollah is going to defend the Lebanese borders and is going to take some already occupied parts of Lebanese sovereignty by the Israelis, in Shaba, if you know, and Palestinians, of course, have been occupied for more than 70 years. So as long as they are trying for their interests, for their legitimate political interests, to defend their sovereignty, their own normal lives, Iran, not only Iran but most of the regional powers are going to support them,” he furthered.
He said that several Arab nations are concerned about Israel’s expansionist nature in the region. “So everyone is going to keep borders safe as much as possible by supporting Palestinians, supporting Lebanese, supporting Syrians. And that’s the regional security policy for everyone in the region,” he concluded.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
