With indirect talks between Iran and the US set to begin in Oman, Washington is undergoing an internal crisis over determining its strategy toward Tehran. This crisis stems from the differing views within Trump’s close advisors. On one side, an extremist faction led by Waltz, Rubio, and the US Secretary of Defense, is using openly threatening rhetoric in an attempt to push the agenda of maximum pressure, including the military option, back onto the table. On the other side, individuals such as Steve Witkoff, Trump’s newly appointed economic representative for negotiations, are seeking ways to manage tensions using economic tools and a transactional approach.

Waltz’s harsh rhetoric, labeling Iran as an “existential threat to America” and emphasizing that “all options are on the table,” along with Rubio’s provocative stance calling for escalated sanctions and readiness for military action, indicate that the Israeli lobby has gained significant influence within Washington’s decision-making layers. The clear goal is to pull the US into a confrontation with Iran instead of pursuing diplomacy. The public and covert pressures from this lobby have now led to a direct confrontation with the more moderate, analysis-driven approach of other members of Trump’s team.

In this context, Trump’s appointment of an economic figure, rather than a diplomat or security expert, to handle the Iran file carries an important message: Despite his hawkish election rhetoric, the US President has a relatively clear understanding of the costs of entering a war and does not want to completely yield to the war-driven faction around him. Witkoff, who has a background in investment and foreign trade, takes a deal-oriented and non-ideological approach, striving to incorporate economic incentives into the equation rather than relying solely on pressure.

These differences, especially on the eve of sensitive negotiations that could determine the course of relations between the two countries for months to come, have become one of the fundamental challenges of US foreign policy. Witkoff and his allies have warned that if maximalist demands are imposed without considering the on-the-ground realities, the Iranian side will likely respond with a sharp reaction, potentially even withdrawing from negotiations. This comes as Washington has been deeply concerned over Iran’s nuclear advancements and its regional role in security crises in recent months.

The future of US policy toward Iran will depend on the outcome of two factors: the influence of political and economic lobbies within the White House and the success or failure of the upcoming negotiations. If the hawkish group succeeds in overpowering the economic faction, it is likely that the military confrontation or multilayered sanctions will again outweigh diplomacy. However, if Witkoff’s proposed path, which combines economic incentives and relative restrictions, succeeds in the negotiations, we could witness a form of “operational agreement” with new benchmarks.

It should be noted that the Israeli lobby’s efforts to drag the US into direct confrontation with Iran is a long-term and multifaceted project. However, the reality of Washington’s power structure indicates that economic and calculated logic still holds sway among some decision-makers. The Oman talks will serve as a turning point in determining the course of this hidden conflict.