Iran and US move forward in talks but tensions linger

The negotiations, mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi, bring together US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and an Iranian delegation led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The talks are expected to focus on uranium enrichment levels, sanctions relief and the economic benefits Iran seeks in return.

US President Donald Trump said he would be involved “indirectly” and signaled that Tehran may be open to a deal.

“I don’t think they want the consequences of not making a deal,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Monday, referring to previous US B-2 bomber strikes on Iranian nuclear targets last year. “We could have had a deal instead of sending the B-2s in.”

Yet even as diplomacy proceeds, the Pentagon is preparing for the possibility of weeks-long military operations should Trump order an attack, two US officials told Reuters.

Iran began military drills in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, signaling the risk of confrontation in one of the world’s most critical oil shipping lanes.

The talks follow a failed attempt to revive negotiations last June that collapsed after Israel launched an air campaign against Iran, later joined by US strikes on nuclear facilities. Tehran says it has since halted uranium enrichment, though Western powers remain skeptical.

Iran enters the talks weakened by months of anti-government protests, suppressed at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and by a sanctions-driven economic crisis that has sharply reduced oil revenues.

At the same time, Washington has deployed what Trump has described as a “massive” naval presence in the region.

Iran insists the negotiations must remain strictly nuclear in scope and has ruled out discussing its ballistic missile program, its support for regional militia groups or abandoning enrichment entirely. US officials have sought to broaden the agenda beyond nuclear issues.

On Monday, Araghchi met International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi in Geneva to discuss cooperation with the UN watchdog and technical aspects of the talks.

Iran says full sanctions relief is an essential component of any agreement, and the presence of economic and technical advisers in its delegation reflects that priority.

Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC that Tehran was ready to discuss curbs on its nuclear program, including measures related to its roughly 400 kg stockpile of highly enriched uranium, if Washington was willing to lift sanctions.

“If they are ready to talk about sanctions, we are ready to discuss this and other issues related to our nuclear program,” he said, adding that it was too early to say what specific steps might emerge from negotiations.

Iran’s atomic energy chief said on Monday that Tehran could dilute its most highly enriched uranium in exchange for the removal of all financial sanctions, a point Takht-Ravanchi cited as an example of Iran’s flexibility.

However, he repeated that the idea of ending all uranium enrichment in Iran – a longstanding US position and a major sticking point in past talks – would not be accepted.

“The issue of zero enrichment is no longer raised and, as far as Iran is concerned, is not on the negotiating table,” he said.

Indirect talks between Tehran and Washington resumed in Oman earlier this month, with a second round scheduled for Tuesday in Geneva, Takht-Ravanchi confirmed.

“(Initial talks went) more or less in a positive direction, but it is too early to judge,” he said.

A US delegation including envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner is expected to meet Iranian officials in Geneva, with Omani representatives mediating.

Takht-Ravanchi said the “ball is in the US court” to demonstrate it is serious about reaching an agreement, adding that Washington had publicly and privately, through Oman, expressed interest in a peaceful resolution.

While Tehran has signaled readiness to negotiate limits on its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief, it has repeatedly ruled out discussions on its ballistic missile program. Takht-Ravanchi reaffirmed that position, saying Iran would not deprive itself of what it considers defensive capabilities.

“When we were attacked by the Israelis and the Americans, our missiles came to our help. So how can we accept depriving ourselves of our defensive capabilities?” he said.

Iran has also rejected linking the nuclear talks to its regional policies, including support for allied armed groups, an issue increasingly raised in US political discourse around the negotiations.

“If the US insists on addressing all the issues simultaneously,” Hakan Fidan told the Financial Times, referring to Iran’s missile arsenal and support for militant groups, “I’m afraid even the nuclear file will not move forward … the result could be another war in the region.”

Fidan’s remarks come as the United States maintains that any durable deal with Tehran must go beyond uranium enrichment to include limits on ballistic missiles and an end to support for armed groups across the Middle East.

President Donald Trump repeated that position after hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Wednesday, where the two leaders discussed Iran and agreed that the scope of any agreement is a critical issue.

Iranian officials, by contrast, have repeatedly said negotiations should focus solely on the nuclear dossier. Tehran has rejected any discussion of its missile program, which it describes as non-negotiable, and has defended its regional alliances.

Fidan, who has been involved in mediation efforts aimed at preventing a wider conflict, said there were signs of flexibility on both sides regarding enrichment.

“It is positive that the Americans appear willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment within clearly set boundaries,” he said.

“The Iranians now recognize that they need to reach a deal with the Americans, and the Americans understand that the Iranians have certain limits. It’s pointless to try to force them.”

He added that he believed Tehran “genuinely wants to reach a real agreement” and could accept restrictions on enrichment levels and a strict inspections regime, similar to the 2015 nuclear accord.

That agreement capped enrichment at 3.67 percent and sharply limited Iran’s stockpile. However, it did not address missiles or Iran’s support for regional proxies, omissions that critics in Israel and the Persian Gulf have long argued allowed Tehran to expand its military reach.

The renewed diplomacy follows indirect talks in Muscat last week between US envoys and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, facilitated by regional states including Turkey, Qatar and Oman. Both sides described the discussions as a positive first step, though officials have cautioned that major obstacles remain.

Trump’s messaging has at times appeared mixed. While Washington has insisted that missiles and regional activities be part of any final deal, Trump has also said a nuclear-only agreement could be “acceptable” under certain circumstances.

After meeting Netanyahu, he said negotiations would continue “to see whether or not a deal can be consummated,” adding that if not, “we will just have to see what the outcome will be.”

Israel has pushed strongly for Iran’s missile capabilities to be included in negotiations, arguing that they pose a direct and growing threat. Iran, meanwhile, maintains that its missile program is defensive and outside the scope of nuclear talks.

Iran has enough uranium for a dozen bombs

The nuclear file itself remains fraught. Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Wednesday that inspectors have been denied access for months to three key enrichment sites struck during last year’s 12-day war.

He said the agency has a “firm impression” that about 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to just above 60 percent purity, a level close to weapons-grade, remains at the underground facilities.

“The material is there and this material is enough to manufacture a few, maybe a dozen devices,” Grossi said, warning that analysis cannot substitute for physical inspection and that the stockpile carries clear proliferation risks.

President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Wednesday that Iran is willing to open its nuclear sites to “any verification” to prove it is not seeking nuclear weapons, a step that should allow inspectors to assess the damage from the June Israeli and US strikes and account for Iran’s uranium stockpile.

Against that backdrop, Fidan cautioned against attempting to resolve all disputes at once. He argued that while Washington’s primary concern is nuclear capability, “the other issues are closely tied to countries of the region, because missiles and proxies affect regional security.”

He also warned that military action would be unlikely to bring about regime change in Iran. “I don’t think that regime change will occur,” Fidan said, suggesting that while infrastructure and state institutions could be severely damaged, the political system would endure.

Netanyahu’s sudden trip to Washington on Tuesday is not routine diplomacy. It reflects his deep concern that renewed US–Iran talks in Oman could drift toward a narrow nuclear agreement that would stabilize Tehran rather than confront it.

Recent statements by President Trump have focused almost exclusively on the nuclear file. After the meeting on Wednesday, he said he told Netanyahu that he prefers a negotiated settlement with Iran and hopes Tehran is more reasonable than it was in 2025.

For Netanyahu, this signals a familtiar danger: pressure within the United States to settle for a deal that curbs uranium enrichment while leaving Iran’s missile arsenal, regional network of proxies, and broader strategic posture intact.

Netanyahu appears to believe this moment is unique—that Iran is weaker than it has been in years: economically strained, internally divided, and strategically exposed after recent regional confrontations. In his assessment, a limited agreement would squander a rare opportunity to alter the regime’s trajectory, particularly at a time of unprecedented US military presence in the region.

As in past confrontations with US administrations, Netanyahu is expected to arrive armed with intelligence briefings and a historical argument tailored to Trump himself. The message is likely to be direct: presidents are remembered for moments when they reshape history, not defer it. This, he will argue, is such a moment.

Netanyahu will also push for broadening negotiations to include Iran’s ballistic missile program—a threat not only to Israel but to US forces and regional allies.

Tehran is unlikely to accept such terms. Iranian officials have asserted this many times. Yet from Netanyahu’s perspective, that refusal would strengthen the case for a tougher American response. If Tehran accepts expanded terms, its capacity to project power would be significantly reduced.

There is also a domestic dimension.

Netanyahu seeks to reinforce his image as the leader most capable of confronting Iran while maintaining close ties with the US. That positioning carries particular weight after earlier claims that Israel had neutralized key Iranian threats—claims now tempered by recognition that deterrence alone may not suffice.

Underlying this approach is a broader strategic conclusion: Israel can manage Iran’s proxies, but it cannot indefinitely manage the regime itself. Only a fundamental shift in Tehran, whether through internal collapse or decisive US-led military pressure, would transform Israel’s long-term security equation.

Netanyahu’s decision to engage Trump directly also reflects skepticism toward the president’s diplomatic circle, particularly advisers who favor a pragmatic nuclear arrangement that stabilizes tensions in the short term while leaving the core challenge unresolved.

From Netanyahu’s standpoint, the risk of a narrow agreement is clear. Economic relief for Tehran could dilute international urgency and complicate future coalition-building against Iran while constraining Israel’s freedom of action.

Yet this strategy carries risks of its own.

Netanyahu may underestimate the resistance his approach could encounter within the United States, especially among segments of the MAGA movement increasingly skeptical of foreign entanglements. While Trump himself has shown openness to assertive uses of power, much of his political base is wary of being drawn into another Middle Eastern confrontation.

Historical memory also shapes the landscape. Netanyahu’s 2002 congressional testimony supporting military action in Iraq—and the subsequent costs of that war—still resonates in Washington. Advocacy framed as preventive or regime-targeting military action inevitably triggers those comparisons.

Israel could face heightened scrutiny and erosion of political goodwill should US–Iran tensions escalate in ways perceived domestically as externally driven or strategically avoidable.

In seeking to shape US policy at a pivotal moment, Netanyahu is pursuing what he sees as strategic necessity. But in doing so, he risks complicating Israel’s long-term standing within an increasingly divided American political landscape.

The signals of flexibility were buried beneath the usual chants of defiance and confrontational theatrics at the annual rally marking the foundation of the Islamic Republic. Coffins bearing photos of US officials were paraded through the streets. An effigy of Jeffrey Epstein was set on fire.

The messaging unfolded as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Donald Trump at the White House—a meeting that could reinforce calls in Washington for a harder line on Tehran.

Two dozen Western reporters were in Tehran. Some appeared delighted to meet Iranian schoolchildren speaking fluent English; others were charmed by Persian cuisine and elderly men eager to shake hands. Few seemed inclined to recall that, just four weeks earlier, thousands of protesters had reportedly been killed in those same streets.

Away from the orchestrated celebrations and from the state-approved “fixers” guiding journalists through carefully staged displays of loyalty, senior officials blended familiar defiance with cautious hints of compromise.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Iran was ready for talks about the level of enrichment and even the extent of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

“If the negotiations are meant to bear results, there needs to be some kind of compromise,” he added, acknowledging that “this is the difficult part of the job.”

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, struck a similarly measured tone, telling Al Jazeera that talks in Oman had been positive while reiterating Tehran’s position that conflicts with Washington’s demand for stricter limits.

“There is no talk of zeroing out enrichment,” he said. “We need it in the fields of energy and pharmaceutical manufacturing.”

The comments followed Larijani’s visits to Oman and Qatar, where he reportedly delivered a red folder that some analysts suggested could contain Khamenei’s response to a message from President Trump.

Photographs show him handing a letter to the Sultan of Oman and later presenting a red envelope in Doha, despite aides’ denials that any formal message was conveyed.

In an interview with Oman’s state television, Larijani offered an unusually restrained assessment of US policy, saying Washington’s framework “has become more realistic.”

Whether these tonal shifts signal a durable change in Iran’s messaging or a tactical adjustment on a symbolic day remains unclear.

Another unusual development added to the speculation. For decades, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has marked the anniversary by meeting a delegation of Iranian Air Force officers, echoing a similar gathering with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979.

This year, he skipped the meeting and instead sent the officers to pay their respects to Hassan Khomeini, the founder’s grandson and presumed heir—a gesture that reignited the never-ending whispers of succession.