Breakthrough or illusion? US and Iran hail ‘positive’ nuclear talks as second round nears

Why did US-Iran nuclear talks resume in Oman after years of deadlock?

The United States and Iran have resumed long-stalled nuclear negotiations, marking a pivotal moment in efforts to curtail Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme. Held in Muscat, Oman, on April 12, the diplomatic engagement was mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi and featured delegations led by U.S. Special Envoy Steven Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Both countries described the discussions as “constructive” and “positive,” offering hope that sustained dialogue could help defuse one of the most entrenched geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. The two sides are scheduled to meet again on April 19.

This development comes amid growing concerns from the international community about the pace and scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently flagged advancements that potentially bring Iran closer to weapons-grade enrichment, sparking a renewed urgency to revisit nuclear safeguards. For Washington, the talks represent an opportunity to reimpose limits on Iran’s nuclear programme, while for Tehran, the primary goal remains the lifting of long-standing U.S. and international sanctions that have crippled its economy.

What issues are on the table in the renewed nuclear negotiations?

Although both nations described the initial talks as a step forward, they remain deeply divided on critical issues. The U.S. seeks to restrict Iran’s enrichment capabilities and reintroduce transparent inspection mechanisms under the oversight of the IAEA. Iran, meanwhile, demands the removal of punitive sanctions, especially those targeting its banking sector, oil exports, and foreign reserves.

Steven Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s newly appointed envoy for nuclear diplomacy, acknowledged the complexity of the discussions but stressed the importance of direct dialogue. According to a statement from the White House, his engagement in Oman was seen as “a step forward in achieving a mutually beneficial outcome.” The two sides held indirect negotiations for over two hours, followed by a brief direct exchange in the presence of Minister Badr al-Busaidi.

Iran’s foreign ministry echoed that sentiment, noting that the current round of discussions did not aim for a final agreement but rather focused on rebuilding trust and exploring common ground for future negotiations. Araghchi reiterated Iran’s position that talks must not “drag on forever,” a stance that appears to align with the White House’s urgency for measurable progress.

What is the history behind Iran’s nuclear programme?

Iran’s nuclear ambitions date back to the 1950s, initially supported by the United States under the Atoms for Peace initiative. The programme expanded in the 1970s under the Shah, who envisioned the construction of 23 nuclear reactors by the year 2000. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, however, the nuclear programme became increasingly secretive, prompting growing international suspicion.

The turning point came in 2002 when the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled opposition group, revealed the existence of a covert uranium enrichment facility in Natanz. This led to the first of many reports by the IAEA indicating that Iran had failed to disclose key elements of its nuclear programme, a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran has been a signatory since 1970.

From 2010 onwards, the United Nations, European Union, and the United States imposed severe economic sanctions on Iran, freezing an estimated $100 billion in foreign assets and plunging the nation into a deep recession. These sanctions eventually led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, a multilateral agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries—namely, the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Germany.

Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduce its stockpile, and allow regular IAEA inspections. In exchange, sanctions were lifted. However, in 2018, then-President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, reimposing sanctions and escalating tensions.

How have recent geopolitical shifts influenced the latest talks?

The resumption of talks under the Trump administration marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Previously, Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA was widely criticised by European allies and prompted Iran to gradually breach key provisions of the agreement. The new engagement, led by Witkoff, is seen as a pragmatic recalibration aimed at preventing a nuclear crisis while avoiding a direct confrontation in an already volatile region.

This shift is also occurring against a backdrop of heightened conflict in the Middle East, including Israeli-Iranian tensions and attacks on U.S. military bases in Syria and Iraq. Oman’s involvement as a neutral mediator underscores its growing role as a diplomatic facilitator in the region. Muscat has previously hosted U.S.-Iran backchannel talks and continues to be viewed as a trusted interlocutor by both sides.

For Iran, the prospect of sanctions relief could provide a much-needed economic lifeline. The Iranian rial has been under immense pressure, inflation has surged, and public dissatisfaction over economic mismanagement continues to grow. Thus, Tehran has strong incentives to reach a deal, provided it does not require compromising its core strategic objectives.

What is the broader international reaction to the nuclear dialogue?

The international community, including the European Union, Russia, and China, has largely welcomed the revival of U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Many countries are hopeful that an updated or alternative agreement could serve as a foundation for broader non-proliferation efforts across the region. However, there are concerns that the window for diplomacy may be closing, especially if either side adopts a maximalist position that derails trust-building efforts.

Analysts warn that even a partial deal that includes verifiable limits on enrichment and transparency mechanisms would be a significant improvement over the current trajectory. However, any agreement is likely to face domestic opposition in both countries, particularly from hardliners in Iran and conservative factions in the U.S. Congress who remain sceptical of any engagement with the Iranian regime.

Despite these hurdles, the fact that both parties have committed to a follow-up meeting on April 19 suggests a mutual recognition that continued isolation or confrontation would be more costly than negotiation. The presence of direct communication—albeit brief—between the two delegations also signals a willingness to move beyond past grievances.

Can the renewed US-Iran nuclear talks lead to a breakthrough?

While a comprehensive nuclear agreement remains distant, the April 12 meeting in Oman marked a symbolic and strategic breakthrough. For the first time in years, both nations acknowledged a shared interest in finding a resolution, even if the path forward remains fraught with mistrust and technical complexity.

The upcoming round of negotiations will test whether these positive sentiments can translate into tangible commitments. With the international community watching closely, the stakes are high—not only for regional stability but for the broader global non-proliferation framework.

The emphasis now lies on whether these diplomatic overtures can bridge the entrenched divisions and reinstate a verifiable framework that prevents nuclear escalation while offering Iran a pathway to economic recovery.