The delay in these indirect Iran-US talks, especially so close to their scheduled date, signals fresh complications in the diplomatic process. While Oman’s foreign minister attributed the postponement to logistical issues, the simultaneous imposition of new US sanctions and the combative tone of American officials lend credence to the notion that political factors also played a role.
Following the third round of negotiations in Muscat, the US government imposed sanctions on several Iranian individuals and companies, accusing them of supporting Iran’s missile program. Simultaneously, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a stark warning, accusing Iran of supplying military support to Yemen’s Ansarallah (Houthis), and declared, “You will pay the price for this support at a time and place of our choosing.” These remarks were amplified by Steve Witkoff, the US president’s special envoy for Middle East affairs, indicating a coordinated stance within the American administration—a diplomacy laced with threats, where pressure is used not as an alternative but as a parallel tool to dialogue.
Iran, on the other hand, has consistently asserted that negotiations and pressure are fundamentally contradictory approaches. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei condemned the latest US sanctions, stressing that “resolving issues is only possible through mutual respect and a constructive approach.” He warned that contradictory behavior could further complicate the situation.
Speaking to reporters after Lebanon’s foreign minister relayed the news of the delay, Baqaei clarified: “This postponement came at the suggestion of Oman’s foreign minister and is purely part of scheduling coordination. Talks are continuing on the diplomatic track, and a new date will be announced once agreed upon by both parties.” He reaffirmed Iran’s commitment to dialogue, saying, “From the beginning, the Islamic Republic of Iran entered the talks in good faith and laid out a clear framework for a fair, reasonable, and sustainable understanding. Based on international law and in pursuit of lifting unlawful sanctions, we remain firmly on the diplomatic path.”
Taken together, these positions show that diplomacy is still alive, though clearly under strain from US pressure tactics. The Trump administration appears to be attempting to reshape the playing field in its favor while maintaining the façade of negotiation. But this very inconsistency—engaging in dialogue while escalating pressure—has led to mistrust and the current suspension of talks.
Meanwhile, the possible postponement of Iran’s meeting with the European troika also reflects the difficulty of coordination and the sensitivity of this stage in the negotiations. It may be too early to declare a deadlock, but it's evident that diplomacy has reached a critical point where the true will of both sides is being tested. If Washington genuinely seeks a lasting, enforceable agreement, it must choose between the language of threats and the path of negotiation—because in Iran’s view, these two cannot coexist.
NOURNEWS