Nournews: The fourth round of indirect negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States was held on May 11 in Muscat, Oman. The talks lasted for 3 hours and, unlike the previous rounds, are considered an important step toward the final determination of Iran’s nuclear dossier by delving into the technical details.
During the indirectly held negotiations, with Oman acting as a mediator, parts of the talks were dedicated to detailed issues such as the removal of sanctions and measures to build trust. However, Tehran’s red line regarding the continuation of enrichment has clearly been announced as non-negotiable.
After the negotiations, Abbas Araghchi, Iran Foreign Minister, clearly stated, "Enrichment is our red line, and any retreat on this matter is meaningless. Talks can only occur within a limited and temporary framework regarding certain technical levels to build trust."
He emphasized that the atmosphere of the negotiations had become “more serious and more frank” compared to previous rounds, and that despite fundamental differences, both sides had engaged in useful discussions on some operational issues.
These remarks came just days before the start of the Muscat talks, when Steve Witkoff, the U.S. President’s Special Representative for Middle East Affairs, in an unprecedented interview, called for the complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program and the dismantling of enrichment facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—a stance that drew a strong reaction from Iranian officials. The Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic also firmly declared: “Enrichment is the legal right of the Iranian nation under the NPT treaty, and there are no plans to stop or shut it down.”
Nevertheless, the tone of the negotiations did not become tense despite the earlier harsh positions. Sources close to the talks reported that both sides, while maintaining the framework of indirect negotiations, had moved beyond generalities and entered specific areas such as the list of sanctions that could be lifted, banking mechanisms, oil exports, and the timeline for reciprocal actions. Even an Axios journalist quoted a senior U.S. official as saying, “The two sides agreed to continue working on technical details, and we are encouraged by the current trajectory.”
These remarks—mirrored in statements from White House officials—reflect a shift in the U.S. approach toward dialogue with Iran. James Blair, a senior White House official, in a rare comment stated: “On Iran, our goal is to resolve issues through diplomacy. Each round of talks with Iran has moved further than the previous one, and we hope to make more progress in future negotiations.”
Meanwhile, psychological tactics and the media battlefield have become part of the strategic confrontation. Iran, with full awareness, is working to prevent Western media from distorting the narrative of the talks. Araghchi, referring to contradictory statements by senior officials echoed in the media, warned: “Such ongoing contradictions could undermine the negotiation process and lead to distrust.” He emphasized that advancing the talks requires consistency between America’s official and media positions.
Despite ongoing major disagreements, the overall tone of the negotiations indicates the continuation of diplomacy without crossing Tehran’s red lines. From Iran’s perspective, negotiations are a means to secure national security and interests—not a replacement for them. As Masoud Pezeshkian stated in a key stance: “We will not bargain over achievements for which blood has been shed.” This strategic perspective shows that the decision-making structure of the Islamic Republic, while open to dialogue, is unwilling to compromise on fundamental principles.
The takeaway from this round of talks is a relative convergence on technical matters, persistent disagreement in some key areas, and most importantly, a shared will to continue dialogue. Informed sources in Muscat announced that the date for the fifth round of talks will be officially declared in the coming days. This signals the continuation of a rational diplomatic path alongside Iran’s strategic resistance to pressure, threats, or the imposition of unacceptable demands by the other side.