Nournews: Donald Trump, the President of the United States, announced the start of negotiations with Iran at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington. This announcement quickly drew global media attention to the sensitive developments. A few hours later, Abbas Araghchi, Iran Foreign Minister, confirmed the news and stated that the talks would be held in Oman. However, he clearly emphasized that the negotiations would be indirect.

Challenges ahead for breaking the deadlock

A key challenge that emerged after the announcement of talks was the differing interpretations by Iran and the U.S. regarding whether the talks are direct or indirect. This debate continues to generate discussion.
Yet, the most crucial issue surrounding these negotiations — beyond the nature of the talks, which Iran has announced would be indirect -  is the agenda of the discussions, which neither side has disclosed. Whether talks are held directly or indirectly stems from political considerations, but that alone is unlikely to determine the outcome.

The negotiation agenda: A starting point or a dealbreaker?

What matters most is the agenda and how each side approaches the talks. The central issue should not be whether the talks are direct or indirect, but rather what topics are on the table — such as Iran’s nuclear program, the lifting of sanctions, and safeguarding national interests against Western pressure.
Some analysts argue that, considering Trump’s threatening and one-sided letter to Iran, and Tehran’s firm response delivered through Oman, if the agenda reflects only those messages, hopes for a productive outcome on Saturday are slim.
However, a more pragmatic viewpoint suggests that if the U.S. insists on threats, Iran will respond in kind, rendering talks pointless — and the existing letter exchange would have sufficed to define the relationship. Still, the U.S.’s insistence on negotiations and Iran’s acceptance of indirect talks could imply that a working agenda has been or will be established, making it possible to break the current deadlock.

Regional countries: Their security tied to negotiation outcomes

An analysis of the Persian Gulf region shows that if the talks fail, the risk of military conflict will rise sharply. Persian Gulf Arab countries, already impacted by tensions between Iran and the U.S., have nothing to gain from escalating conflict.
If negotiations collapse and the region shifts further toward military threats, these nations will be directly at risk. Therefore, reaching a resolution and removing the threat of war is crucial for their national security.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar — Iran’s neighbors — must play an active role. Many of these nations have previously tried to mediate or ease tensions. Now they have a strategic opportunity, not just as a choice but as a necessity, to use their diplomatic capacities to help reduce tensions and prevent military crisis. Especially during times of heightened tension, they must support any process that leads to de-escalation to protect their national interests.

Europe: Under U.S. pressure, facing internal challenges

At the international level, Europe is also facing serious challenges. With Trump returning to power and taking a more aggressive stance toward Iran, Europe finds itself directly impacted by U.S. policies.
Due to U.S. pressure, the European Union cannot easily defend its own positions. Meanwhile, Washington is seeking to demonstrate military strength in the region — a tactic that might serve as a short-term lever for the U.S. but could have long-term negative consequences for Europe.
If the Iran nuclear crisis escalates, Europe will face growing security risks. Instability in the Middle East could lead to increased migration, terrorist threats, and pressure on EU member states. In this context, a constructive European role in advancing balanced negotiations with Iran and the U.S. would also directly benefit Europe’s own security and stability.

The influential role of China and Russia

As two key members of the UN Security Council and long-standing strategic partners of Iran, Russia and China are likely concerned about a return to U.S. unilateralism in these negotiations.
Beijing and Moscow are aware that any agreement that ignores Iran’s strategic interests will not only be rejected by Tehran but will also disrupt the regional balance.
Thus, China and Russia — who just held their second trilateral meeting with Iran — are expected to actively encourage the U.S. to adopt a more realistic approach.

Negotiation or war?

The prospects for Iran-U.S. talks are heavily influenced by both regional and global players. If negotiations fail and regional tensions escalate into military conflict, Persian Gulf Arab countries will be directly affected.
At the same time, Europe’s negative position regarding the U.S. policies may expose the continent to security and economic threats.
Given these realities, successful negotiations between Iran and the U.S. depend on the ability of both sides to agree on a shared agenda that balances their respective interests and concerns.
Regional and global players — especially China, Russia, and the European Union — must play their part in facilitating this process to prevent war and further instability in the region.