Iran struggles to shape narrative on US talks

“Speaking of a trillion-dollar investment from the United States is nothing but a dream and fantasy,” said Ferial Mostofi, head of the Investment Services Center at the Tehran Chamber of Commerce, in an interview with Shargh daily. “How can we expect foreign investors to come to Iran when domestic investors move their capital out of the country?”

In its article titled “Foreign Investment: Mirage or Reality?”, Shargh referred to a claim circulating in Iranian circles that Tehran is seeking an agreement with the United States to guarantee $1 trillion in US investment over twenty years. “This claim means the United States would have to invest $50 billion in Iran annually.”

Shargh also recalled past official claims that China had pledged $400 billion in investments in Iran’s oil, gas, petrochemical, and transport sectors, while Russia’s Gazprom was expected to invest $40 billion in Iran’s gas industry. The article pointed out that none of those promised investments ever materialized.

“[A trillion-dollar US investment] is exactly like the much-discussed $400 billion investment from China [over twenty-five years],” the article said, arguing that China has not—and likely will not—invest such a large sum in Iran due to several factors, including inadequate hard infrastructure in transportation and energy, lack of transparency, and political risks.

Iran is in urgent need of foreign investment to revitalize its aging oil and gas infrastructure and to support other key sectors, including its large but struggling automotive industry.

According to the 2024 report of the UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Iran attracted $1.4 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2023. The meager figures stood at $1.5 billion in 2022 and $1.4 billion in 2021. The highest recorded FDI level was over $5 billion in 2017, following the implementation of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal which lifted UN economic sanctions against Iran.

President Masoud Pezeshkian said recently that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has no objection to American investment in Iran. Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, writing in a Washington Post op-ed, put the onus on Washington to allow American companies to access what he described as a “trillion-dollar opportunity” in Iran. Neither Pezeshkian nor Araghchi provided specific details.

The Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) linked Javan newspaper appeared to support the idea of American investment in Iran in an article it published one day before the first round of Tehran-Washington talks in Muscat on April 8. “It is possible that we accept that some American companies have the opportunity to invest or sell their products, if Iran's economic interests are met. If sanctions are lifted, these companies will be eager to invest, and Iran will be unlikely to object.”

However, any American investment in Iran would require the removal of at least some of the primary US sanctions, many of which predate the nuclear-related sanctions.

While Khamenei has not officially banned American or other foreign investment, he has consistently advocated for stronger economic ties with Eastern countries such as Russia and China, expressing deep mistrust toward the West.

Despite publicly distancing himself from economic policymaking, Khamenei is widely believed to exert substantial control over Iran’s economy through political influence, economic entities under his authority, and the IRGC’s involvement. In one notable instance, he banned imports of South Korean electronics brands LG and Samsung in August 2021 to pressure Seoul over Iran's frozen funds.

The plan was presented by Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in writing to US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff during the three-hour talks.

Tehran proposed that in the first stage, it would temporarily reduce its uranium enrichment level to 3.67% in exchange for access to financial assets frozen by the United States and permission to export its oil, the diplomatic sources told Iran International.

In the second phase, the sources added, Iran would permanently end high-level enrichment and restore the United Nations nuclear watchdog's inspections if the United States lifts further sanctions on Iran and persuades Britain, Germany and France to refrain from triggering the so-called snapback of UN sanctions on Tehran.

In this phase, Iran would also commit to implementing the Additional Protocol, a supplementary agreement that allows the UN nuclear watchdog to carry out surprise inspections at sites not declared to the agency.

Tehran ended that compliance in February 2021 after Trump in his first term withdrew from a previous international deal over Iran's nuclear program in 2018.

The third and final stage calls for the US congress to approve the nuclear agreement and for Washington to lift both primary and secondary sanctions, while Iran would transfer its highly enriched uranium stockpiles to a third country.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon and the US intelligence assesses that Tehran has not yet resolved to build one, but the Trump administration has warned Iran it must come to a nuclear deal or face attack.

A second round due to be held in Rome on Saturday could prove more rocky than the amicable first round in which Iran submitted its plan for a deal.

Washington toughened its public stance on Tuesday, with both the White House and Witkoff saying that the US goal in negotiations would be the wholesale end of Iran's nuclear program, a notion Iran has repeatedly called a non-starter.

Iran's proposal welcomed by Witkoff

US envoy Witkoff welcomed the proposals presented by the Iranian side, the sources told Iran International, surprising the Iranian delegation in Muscat.

Iranian officialdom appeared cheered by the first round of talks, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remarking in a meeting with senior military commanders on Tuesday that "the initial steps have been implemented well".

A diplomatic source outside Tehran expressed skepticism to Iran International of the Islamic Republic's intentions in the talks and said it seeks to delay a foreign attack by staggering an agreement over several complex phases.

“One of the reasons Iran’s Supreme Leader agreed to allow the resumption of negotiations is the need to buy more time, because he knows Iran currently lacks the ability to defend itself against another airstrike," the source said.

“Iran is mainly stalling to buy time to rebuild its air defense capabilities, which were all destroyed by Israel in late October, and to restore its capacity to produce surface-to-surface missiles which were damaged in that same Israeli attack,” the source added.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said on Thursday that his actions had previously thwarted Iran's ability to build a bomb, appearing to respond to a New York Times report that President Trump had halted Israeli plans to attack Iran.

"Netanyahu has led countless secret and open actions in the campaign against Iran's nuclear program that only thanks to them Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal today," the statement said.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Wednesday Iran was "not far" from possessing an atomic bomb.

"It's like a puzzle: they have the pieces and maybe one day they could put them back together. There's still a long way to go before we get there. But they're not far away, we have to admit that," he said in an interview with Le Monde.

"It's not enough to tell the international community 'we don't have nuclear weapons' for them to believe it. We have to be able to verify it," Grossi said.

In its latest report in March, the IAEA warned that over the past three months, Iran had significantly expanded its reserves of highly enriched uranium, and if this trend continues, its stockpile could theoretically be enough to produce six nuclear bombs.

At the beginning of the week, Witkoff seemed to suggest that Washington would accept low-level uranium enrichment with Iran, but the following day he retreated, and the rest of the Trump administration began to emphasize that all of Iran’s nuclear program should be stopped

The change came after President Donald Trump said he held meetings with groups of politicians and officials in Washington about the matter. Those politicians could have possibly been individuals who warned Trump that the deal as explained by Witkoff looks more like an Obama deal rather than a Trump deal.

In Tehran, an article published on the Fararu website suggested that two types of unexpected developments could arise at any moment, potentially reshaping the course of the negotiations and broader regional dynamics. One could seriously disrupt the talks, while the other might lead to a sudden breakthrough.

According to Fararu, the first possibility involves a dramatic escalation by Israel—such as a fatal attack on Iranian officials, particularly those directly involved in the negotiations. The second potential surprise, the article argues, could come from an abrupt shift in President Trump’s stance, should he decide to strike a quick deal with Iran in order to claim a diplomatic win on a high-profile international issue.

At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that President Donald Trump had crossed Tehran’s red line by stating that Iran must halt all uranium enrichment—a core point of contention in the nuclear talks.

Several Iranian analysts, including Iran International’s Ali Hossein Ghazizadeh, argued that Araghchi’s statement could effectively bring the negotiations with Washington to an end.

His remarks came just one day before a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and less than three days before his scheduled second meeting with US envoy Steve Witkoff—whose venue had still not been finalized at the time.

To the dismay of Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Iranian and US media reported on Wednesday afternoon that the next round of talks would take place in Rome. The ministry’s spokesperson reacted angrily to the announcement, calling it a sign that “the United States is not serious or committed to the negotiations.”

Interestingly, it was Iran that initially agreed to Rome as the venue. Italian officials welcomed the decision, but Tehran later reversed course and announced that the meeting should instead be held in Oman. According to reporters, two factors may have contributed to this shift: concerns that Iranian opposition groups abroad were planning protests in Rome, and Araghchi’s reported apprehension about a possible encounter with US Vice President J.D. Vance, who is also expected to visit the Italian capital on Saturday.

Meanwhile, the Italian government has expressed its desire to host the meeting at the Italian Foreign Ministry and has reportedly sought to involve other European countries in the talks. Iran, however, has insisted that the meeting be held at the Omani Foreign Minister’s residence in Rome—possibly to keep protesters and reporters at a distance.

Despite Araghchi’s recent critical remarks, conservative commentator Nasser Imani told the Nameh News website in Tehran that Iran might ultimately agree to direct talks with US officials if circumstances require it.

From President Trump’s perspective, only direct negotiations are meaningful. Araghchi, on the other hand, has maintained that the first round of talks was conducted indirectly, with the Omani foreign minister acting as an intermediary. Nevertheless, Araghchi acknowledged greeting Steve Witkoff for about five minutes at the end of the meeting—while reporters claim the two actually held face-to-face talks lasting around 45 minutes.

In his latest speech in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei struck an unusually upbeat tone regarding the talks with the United States, though he cautioned that he was “neither too optimistic nor too pessimistic.” On Thursday night, when Russian President Vladimir Putin receives Khamenei’s message, he will be among the first to glimpse which direction the Supreme Leader is now leaning.

Grossi spoke during his visit to Tehran on Thursday, following talks with senior Iranian officials ahead of a new round of US-Iran diplomacy expected to continue in Rome.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if the negotiations fail.

“I am also in contact with the American negotiator to see how the agency can be a bridge between Iran and the US, and help achieve a positive outcome in the negotiations,” Grossi said. He added that IAEA verification would be required for any agreement to be considered valid.

Grossi has been invited to Rome for the occasion of the second round of Iran-US talks, Reuters reported citing a diplomatic source. However, Iran's deputy FM says it's too soon to engage the IAEA in the talks.

In February, the agency warned that Iran was enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels, calling the situation “of serious concern.” Tehran has consistently denied seeking nuclear arms.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and nuclear chief Mohammad Eslami met Grossi during his trip.

“Had useful discussion with visiting IAEA chief Grossi,” Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X. “In the coming months, the Agency can play a crucial role in peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear file.”

Araghchi also warned of potential domestic spoilers in the process, adding: “We need a Director General of Peace.”

The agency’s position has gained traction with US officials, who have made broader inspections a central demand.

On Monday, Trump's Envoy Steve Witkoff said in an interview with Fox News that “This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program, and then ultimately verification on weaponization. That includes missiles—the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there—and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”

If Iran's uranium enrichment is curtailed or banned altogether, strict monitoring would become necessary. Witkoff also mentioned Iran's ballistic missile program as part of any potential nuclear weaponization and urged inspections.

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.