Nournews: on March 27, 2025, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, announced that the response to the U.S. President Donald Trump’s letter has been sent through the Sultanate of Oman. Araghchi’s remarks—both before the official announcement of the letter’s delivery and after his telephone conversation with the UK Foreign Minister—carry significant implications. In addition to defining the Islamic Republic of Iran’s roadmap for future interactions with the United States, they may outline the key themes of Iran’s response to Trump’s letter.
Intense doubt and conditional interaction
Trump’s letter to Iran, followed by Tehran’s official response through Oman, marked another step in the complex path of diplomacy, where each party seeks to establish its own terms based on its interests. Choosing Oman as the channel for communication, along with Iran’s explicit stance on U.S. policies, was not just a tactical move but part of a broader strategy to shape Iran’s approach during this critical period.
Before the official announcement of the letter’s dispatch, Iran’s Foreign Minister made a significant comment that reflected Iran’s perspective on the U.S. proposal. He pointed to “intense disqualification” and a disregard for human lives in U.S. policy, emphasizing that Washington’s proposals must be met with “intense doubt.” Not only did this statement illustrate Iran’s skepticism toward the content of Trump’s letter, but it can also be considered a core element of Iran’s official response, likely reiterated in the letter sent to the U.S.
Why Oman and not the UAE?
The choice of Oman as the intermediary for delivering Iran’s response is highly significant. The U.S. attempted to establish a communication channel through the UAE, but by sending its response via Oman, Iran sent a clear message to Washington:
The mediator must be chosen by Iran, not Washington
On a deeper level, Iran’s selection of Oman underscored its commitment to maintaining diplomatic independence. Oman has previously played a trustworthy mediating role between Iran and the West. Unlike the UAE, whose strategic alliance with the U.S. and Israel has strengthened, Oman has maintained a more neutral position in regional affairs. Accepting the UAE as a mediator would have implied Iran’s willingness to operate within a framework dictated by Washington—something Tehran sought to avoid.
Deep Mistrust of U.S. proposals
Araghchi’s remarks before sending the letter revealed Iran’s broader strategy for dealing with the U.S.—beyond mere media rhetoric. He explicitly challenged U.S. policies on the international stage, demonstrating that Tehran does not frame its relationship with Washington solely in the context of bilateral ties but evaluates the U.S.’s overall role on the global stage.
This critical perspective was reiterated in Araghchi’s conversation with the UK Foreign Minister. While emphasizing that U.S. policies are untrustworthy, he stated that Iran views any negotiation conducted under “pressure and threat” as meaningless. This position is rooted in Iran’s experiences with Washington’s “maximum pressure” policy, which has involved extensive economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and even military threats. Engaging with the U.S. in such an environment, from Tehran’s perspective, would equate to surrendering to Washington’s strategy.
Rejecting direct negotiations while maintaining indirect interaction
However, Iran’s stance does not entirely close the door to diplomacy. While Araghchi rejected direct negotiations under current conditions, he emphasized that indirect negotiations could continue as they have in the past. This position signals Iran’s refusal to accept U.S. demands while simultaneously acknowledging the potential for diplomatic management of tensions.
In effect, Tehran aims to define its diplomatic engagement in a way that allows it to retain control over the process. As a result, it has confined diplomatic interactions to indirect methods while preventing the U.S. from dictating the terms of engagement.
Iran’s response: A roadmap for future interactions
Iran’s handling of Trump’s letter extended beyond a simple response; it established a framework for future interactions between Tehran and Washington. This approach includes the following key elements:
Sending an official letter to the U.S., demonstrating Iran’s willingness to respond to Washington’s stance within a diplomatic framework.
Selecting Iran’s trusted mediator (Oman) while rejecting the U.S.-imposed mediator (the UAE), reaffirming Tehran’s diplomatic independence.
Expressing deep mistrust of U.S. political proposals, as reflected in Araghchi’s discussions with the UK Foreign Minister.
Rejecting negotiations under “maximum pressure” and “military threat,” reinforcing Tehran’s official policy toward Washington.
Criticizing U.S. global policies, indicating that Iran seeks to redefine its international stance beyond bilateral relations.
Emphasizing the possibility of indirect negotiations, demonstrating that diplomatic channels remain open.
Iran’s message to the U.S. and the world
Iran’s response, framed according to its own diplomatic principles, carries a multi-layered message. At the surface level, it signals that Iran, while resisting pressure, remains committed to diplomatic norms and does not seek to escalate tensions. On a deeper level, it sets the foundation for future U.S.-Iran interactions, asserting that diplomacy will only be meaningful if Washington abandons its imposed policies and accepts the terms in which Iran has a role in shaping them. Meanwhile, Europe, as a key player, faces a crucial challenge. Araghchi’s conversation with the UK Foreign Minister contained a direct message for London and other European capitals:
If Europe seeks to preserve diplomacy, it must adopt a more independent stance toward the U.S.
Ultimately, the future of Iran-West interactions depends more on how these strategic equations change than on the content of the letters and responses.
NOURNEWS