IAEA’s Grossi presses for role in Iran-US Talks, urges full verification

In a live televised interview on Wednesday evening, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi downplayed the significance of the venue change. “We should not waste our time on the location and timing of the talks,” he said. “We agreed to multiple changes in the location. It’s not an important issue.”

However, Gharibabadi stressed that Oman would continue to facilitate and mediate the negotiation in the Italian capital.

Oman’s role as mediator and preferred host

Oman has long served as a discreet and trusted intermediary between Tehran and Washington. Its role dates back to the early 2010s, when Muscat hosted secret backchannel talks that ultimately led to the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). The United States also sees Oman as a discreet and stable mediator with a history of hosting secret talks with Tehran.

Oman played a crucial, behind-the-scenes role in facilitating the September 2023 exchange of five American detainees in Iran, widely regarded as hostages, and several Iranians held in the US who were accused or convicted of sanctions violations. The deal, brokered with Qatar’s involvement, included the transfer of around $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds from South Korea to accounts in Qatar that have not been released to Iran yet.

Geographic proximity—just a two-hour flight from Tehran—and Oman’s low media profile also make it attractive to Iran. In contrast, European capitals like Vienna or Geneva pose higher risks of media exposure, diplomatic interference, and intelligence surveillance.

Additionally, holding talks in Muscat sends a domestic political signal: resistance to Western pressure, particularly from European countries aligned with Washington on contentious issues like Iran’s missile program, regional policies, and sanctions.

Tehran’s concerns over security risks in European capitals

Tehran’s reluctance to hold talks in Europe also stems from security concerns, particularly fears of espionage and surveillance. Iranian officials remain wary of cyber-espionage in European cities, where Western and Israeli intelligence agencies are believed to be more active.

They are especially concerned about the heightened risk of electronic surveillance targeting the Iranian delegation in hotels, diplomatic sites, and transportation hubs, as well as the possible interception of sensitive communications.

Cyber-espionage during JCPOA talks

In March 2015, senior US officials told the Wall Street Journal that American negotiators in the talks in Austria and Switzerland had been briefed about the threat of Israeli eavesdropping during the nuclear talks that led to the conclusion of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA). There were media reports that then US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran's top negotiator Mohammad-Javad Zarif took walks outside the venue of talks to discuss important issues to avoid eavesdropping.

A few days ahead of the final round of the talks in Vienna in June of the same year, the cybersecurity company Kaspersky reported finding a variant of the Stuxnet virus in the networks of three hotels that hosted the negotiations. The company’s report said infected computers could be used to control cameras, microphones, and phone systems at these hotels to spy on the talks and delegations. Symantec, another security company, confirmed Kaspersky’s findings. 

“The disastrous history of Israel spying on its allies and the incompetence of Western surveillance agencies is a major concern for the Iranian delegation,” said an article titled “What Makes the Decision on Venue of Nuclear Talks Complicated” published by Fararu on Thursday.

The article added that preventing leaks from European diplomats and shielding the process from Israeli or other cyber sabotage likely explains Tehran’s insistence on having the Omani embassy in Rome serve as the host, even if the physical location is no longer Muscat.

Dissident protests possible in European capitals

Another factor influencing Tehran’s preference is the visibility of exiled Iranian dissident groups in Europe, including the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and monarchist factions. These groups often mobilize large crowds to protest outside the venue of talks, creating negative optics and media coverage that Iranian officials find politically damaging.

Such protests are far less likely to occur in Oman, where dissident groups have limited reach and the government maintains tighter control over public demonstrations.

The commentaries follow five days of speculation over the venue for the second round of talks, along with a considerable degree of public negotiations in which both sides voiced at times contradictory positions.

Kayhan, a daily overseen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office, warned that portraying negotiations as the solution to Iran’s economic problems is both misleading and dangerous. This view aligns with Khamenei’s longstanding position since 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions. At the time, Khamenei rejected negotiations with Trump and insisted that Iran could endure the pressure without making concessions.

“A tainted and mission-driven current inside the country promotes the idea that 100 percent of our economic troubles stem from sanctions, and that negotiations are the only way to remove them,” the paper wrote.

“This viewpoint was already tested during the JCPOA and yielded nothing but ‘sheer loss’.”

Kayhan did not reject talks outright but insisted they should remain limited.

“We must not abandon negotiations altogether,” the editorial continued. “But we must not put all our eggs in that basket either. At most, 30 percent of our economic problems are due to sanctions, and negotiations should be treated as just one of several tools—not the only one.”

Calling for a wartime posture across government institutions, Kayhan urged officials to invest in domestic capabilities.

“When the enemy, led by the US, threatened us with gasoline sanctions, we could have negotiated,” the paper wrote. “But what proved durable and reliable was relying on domestic capabilities… In the end, the gasoline sanctions were rendered ineffective through trust in revolutionary youth and round-the-clock efforts.”

Javan, a publication linked to the Revolutionary Guard, echoed the skepticism, warning against polarizing discourse.

“Extreme optimism or pessimism about talks risks fueling a false political dichotomy in foreign policy,” the paper wrote.

“A realistic approach strengthens the negotiating team’s resolve, avoids sending weak signals to the opponent, and builds the dignity and prudence necessary for successful diplomacy,” Javan concluded.

Iran and the US held the first round of nuclear talks in Muscat last Saturday, with both sides calling the exchange constructive. But remarks by the US representative—who initially said Iran could retain limited enrichment but later demanded a complete halt to nuclear activity—have heightened tensions.

Talk show host Mark Levin argued against "another diplomatic solution with an Islamist-Nazi Regime," in a lengthy post on X.

"I’ve great faith in President Trump. Not in some of those trying to pressure him to appease the Iranians, and who none of us voted for and who most Americans know nothing about," in an apparent reference to Trump's advisors.

"I support the President completely when he says no nukes for Iran, I know he means it. We should immediately rally around him and his declaration and let him know we agree. No nukes for Iran. No “peace in our time” phony declarations being urged on him. Either Iran provably and immediately dismantles its development of nuclear weapons or we will do it for them," he added.

Quoting the post, Texas senator Ted Cruz said: "The great @marklevinshow is exactly right. Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the President terrible advice."

"@realDonaldTrump is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that," he added.

Another outspoken critic of Tehran, Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, said: "This is correct ... As President Trump said, the only solution is Iran completely dismantling its program, or we should do it for them."

"Allowing this maniacal terrorist regime to threaten America and the world with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. Those who minimize the risk of this regime are dead wrong."

The warning came just hours before Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was due to arrive in Tehran.

“If a serious military threat emerges, Iran will expel the inspectors, cut their access, and move nuclear materials to locations beyond reach,” Farhikhtegan wrote.

It accused the IAEA of political bias and said Grossi’s previous visits had yielded cooperation only from Iran. “Despite Iran’s compliance, the agency has published reports that fuel anti-Iran resolutions,” it added.

Grossi’s visit coincides with the anticipated second round of negotiations between Iranian and US officials. While details of the agenda remain unclear, the talks have stirred strong opposition across Iran’s ultraconservative press, particularly following mixed signals from Washington.

After the first round of negotiations in Oman on Saturday, US envoy Steve Witkoff said Monday that Iran might be allowed to continue low-level enrichment under a deal resembling the original JCPOA. But on Tuesday, he tweeted that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

“A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal," the special envoy said.

The hardline daily Kayhan, overseen by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's office, focused on Tuesday on Witkoff’s new comments and accused the US of using diplomacy to mask coercive aims.

Editor Hossein Shariatmadari wrote that Witkoff’s offer in earlier talks had “no more value than a cheap political ruse,” adding that the US had “flunked its first test of sincerity.”

“The Americans pretend to negotiate, but their demands expose their true intentions—disarming the Islamic Republic and and plowing its land and people,” Shariatmadari said.

Meanwhile, senior Iranian military adviser Brigadier General Hossein Ashtari told ILNA news agency that Tehran’s stance would not change under pressure.

“Our positions are firm. It is the Americans and the Zionists who must adjust to Iran’s terms,” he said.

With nuclear inspectors in Tehran and diplomacy on a knife’s edge, Iran’s conservative media are pushing a dual message: cooperation remains conditional, but retaliation, if provoked, would be decisive.

The two sides had initially agreed to meet in Rome. However, a disagreement reportedly arose between Iranian officials—who insisted on holding the meeting at the Omani Embassy in Rome—and the Italian government, which maintained that the talks should take place at the Italian Foreign Ministry. This prompted Tehran to make a last-minute announcement on the evening of April 14 that the meeting would instead be held in Oman.

The US side has not publicly commented on the dispute over the location. However, President Donald Trump, who had previously expressed cautious optimism following the first round, criticized the week-long gap between meetings, suggesting that Iran was stalling. “They've got to go fast, because they're fairly close to having one, and they're not going to have one,” he said, referring to Iran’s nuclear capability.

Iranian officials had also requested that Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi attend the Rome meeting, though they did not provide an explanation for the request.

While Iran’s state broadcaster—heavily influenced by the ultraconservative Paydari Party—has been reluctant to cover the first and second meetings with the Americans, the government broke its silence by releasing previously undisclosed information exclusively to the Tehran Times, an English-language daily. Notably, this disclosure bypassed the many Persian-language newspapers published in Tehran.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also weighed in on the talks during a speech on Tuesday. Echoing Trump’s earlier tone, he expressed cautious optimism and said the Iranian negotiating team had performed well.

In a commentary, Eco Iran, a Telegram channel known for serious coverage of domestic politics and economics, wrote: “Despite their historic hostility, an agreement is still possible between Tehran and Washington.” The channel added that Trump had succeeded in pushing Tehran to move its red lines. “The meeting showed that neither Iran nor the United States wants another war in the region,” it added.

Eco Iran also noted growing anxiety among Iranians at home, with many watching the negotiations closely while fearing that Trump’s patience might wear thin. The channel added that Israel is monitoring the talks with concern—especially as Trump may offer Saudi Arabia access to nuclear technology and uranium enrichment during his upcoming visit to Riyadh.

Meanwhile, the pro-reform Telegram channel Jamaran, which is affiliated with former President Mohammad Khatami, posted that many Iranians—particularly those in the middle class—have long supported meaningful engagement with the United States. “Now that the talks have started, the Iranian people are closely watching the developments and discussing them widely,” the channel wrote.

Jamaran added that the public perception is shifting, with many now believing that the government has finally chosen negotiations as a path to address the country’s mounting challenges. It also emphasized that for more than two decades, polls have consistently shown that Iranians favor diplomacy with the West, while also demanding respect for national dignity and interests.

The centrist Telegram channel Emtedad published a commentary by journalist Davoud Heshmati, who welcomed former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s suggestion that any future agreement with Iran should be ratified by the US Senate. He argued that such a step would help reassure Iranians concerned about the possibility of a future US president walking away from the deal.

The comment reflects lingering distrust in Iran toward Trump, with many fearing that even if a new agreement is reached, it could once again be revoked by him—or a successor.