Talks approach—but will Iran and the US sit down directly?

Iran insists that upcoming nuclear talks with the United States in Oman will be indirect, pushing back against US President Donald Trump’s announcement that direct negotiations will be underway.

The Iranian side, as reiterated by government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, maintains that Araghchi’s upcoming talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman will be conducted indirectly. However, Mohajerani did not explicitly rule out the possibility of direct negotiations, noting that Araghchi will lead Iran’s nuclear negotiating team as its highest-ranking official.

Both Araghchi and foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei had previously denied any negotiations were taking place—until Trump’s surprise Monday evening announcement during his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu changed the calculus.

Shahram Kholdi, a Middle East and international relations expert, told Iran International TV that Iran’s insistence on indirect talks stems from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s stance that direct negotiations with the US would be dishonorable.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), offered a different interpretation. In a post on X, he suggested that Tehran may have been caught off guard by Trump’s announcement. According to Brodsky, the announcement was likely meant “to pressure Tehran and make it look unreasonable should it reject the meeting.” He added that indirect negotiations might still occur on Saturday, but both sides would be creative in defining what counts as direct or indirect.

Meanwhile, Nour News, a website close to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, dismissed suggestions that Iran was responding to US pressure. In a post on X, the outlet stated that Iran had set the time and location of the talks in Oman and communicated them to the US through Omani intermediaries. “No one-sided narratives—the initiative was in Tehran's hands,” the post read.

Ali Nasri, a Tehran-based foreign relations expert, criticized the ongoing obsession with terminology. “The bias regarding the words ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ in the matter of negotiations does not benefit the lives of the Iranian people,” he wrote on X. “What matters is whether the negotiation process is effective or ineffective. Whichever method is more effective in securing national interests is the right path.”

Hossein Mousavian, Iran’s ex-ambassador to Germany (1990–1997) and a former senior nuclear negotiator, offered a historical analogy. In an X post, he recalled how negotiations during the Obama administration in Istanbul began under the supervision of EU’s supervision Catherine Ashton but soon transitioned to direct talks between Iranian and American officials. He predicted a similar setup in Oman. “It seems that Washington and Tehran have adopted a wise approach, and there is a chance for an agreement. Both negotiators [Witkoff and Araghchi] are capable, experienced, moderate, and wise,” he wrote.

Reza Nasri, another political commentator, argued that Iran has strategic reasons to consider negotiating with Trump. “Biden couldn’t deliver due to internal weakness and fear of the anti-Iran lobbies. Obama reached a deal, but Republicans killed it. Ironically, Trump may be the only U.S. president strong enough to defy the establishment, bypass Washington’s foreign policy elite, and strike a deal that actually lasts,” he posted on X.

The Iranian market has responded favorably to the prospect of talks, whether direct or indirect. Tehran’s Stock Exchange (TSE) rose by 59,000 points, reaching 2.8 million, while the rial rebounded slightly from last week’s record low, climbing to around 960,000 per dollar from 1,050,000.