As the date for the indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States in Oman approaches, media activities and psychological operations from Washington have reached their peak. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, claimed in a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that direct negotiations between the two countries would take place on Saturday.
In contrast, Tehran has rejected this claim, insisting that negotiations will only occur indirectly with Omani mediation. Analyzing the strategic dimensions of this event shows that Iran, through its initiative, has managed the path, timing, and manner of negotiations in a way that contradicts Washington's efforts to project diplomatic superiority.
Iran's Diplomatic Management
The Islamic Republic of Iran responded to Trump's letter, which was sent through the UAE, by using Oman as the channel for its reply. This smart choice was not only due to Oman's traditional role as a neutral mediator in regional disputes but also a reaction to the UAE's positions and its relations with Israel. The recent meeting between the UAE Foreign Minister and his Israeli counterpart amid political and security challenges between Iran and the Israeli regime further highlights the importance of choosing Oman as a mediator.
Iran's action to maintain the framework of indirect negotiations reflects a calculated strategy where Tehran has not only resisted US diplomatic pressures but has also taken the initiative by defining the format, manner, and timing of the negotiations. This demonstrates Iran's confidence in managing international interactions and avoiding being trapped in direct negotiations lacking a clear framework.
US Psychological Operations: A Battle of Narratives
Trump's proposal for direct negotiations serves two primary goals: first, to exert pressure on the internal public opinion in Iran and create a divide in its foreign policy; and second, to present the US as the “proactive” party in resolving crises. This approach is part of the narrative battle in US foreign policy, where Washington seeks to portray itself as the "peace initiator" while branding Iran as the party evading negotiations.
However, since Tehran has emphasized indirect negotiations from the outset and has compelled the US to accept this framework, Trump's media narrative about direct negotiations lacks credibility and is merely for advertising purposes. The official acceptance of indirect negotiations, including the location and timing determined by the US, indicates Iran's success in establishing the rules of the game.
Prospects for Negotiations and Strategic Implications
Considering the aforementioned developments, the negotiations on Saturday in Oman are significant for three reasons:
First, the consolidation of the indirect negotiation framework: Iran has succeeded in imposing the model of indirect negotiations as the main format for interactions with the US, marking an important achievement in resistance diplomacy.
Second, Oman’s active role as a mediator: Choosing Oman as a neutral intermediary has managed to keep the negotiation process free from the influences of the US-Israel axis.
Third, the failure of the narrative battle against Iran: Trump's attempts to convey a direct negotiation narrative, in light of the ground realities, will result in nothing but a decrease in the credibility of the White House's media claims.
Overall, what has been observed in recent days is Iran's emphasis on maintaining established frameworks for negotiations and avoiding playing into the US media narrative. This trend indicates that Tehran is proceeding with confidence and initiative in the negotiation process, holding the upper hand, and pursuing a strategy based on stability and careful calculation in the face of media pressures.
NOURNEWS