WANA (May 11) – While diplomatic smiles continue to dominate media coverage, the on-the-ground reality of Iran-U.S. negotiations reveals a persistent gap of mistrust and excessive demands. In the fourth round of indirect talks held in Oman, not only is there no sign of change in Washington’s behavior, but a combination of pressure, sanctions, and conflicting messages has cast a shadow of ambiguity and doubt over the negotiation process.

 

Here are ten key points regarding this round of negotiations:

 

1. The composition of the Iranian delegation remains consistent with previous rounds, including technical experts in legal, nuclear, and economic fields, led by Dr. Araghchi, in line with the agenda topics.

 

2. As Oman’s Foreign Minister stated, the delay in the talks last week was due to logistical and support issues. Meanwhile, the Iranian delegation has always been ready to continue and conclude the negotiations.

 

3. Iran’s core demand remains the lifting of sanctions and halting any actions that impose restrictions on its economy or hinder its economic benefits. Preserving Iran’s nuclear capabilities and enrichment cycle is a fundamental principle.

 

4. There is no optimism regarding the goodwill or seriousness of the United States. Therefore, any analysis of the outcome must be approached with caution, especially as the U.S. has continued to impose sweeping sanctions even during negotiations.

 

5. The U.S.’s deep-rooted reliance on sanctions and the strong influence of the Israeli regime—particularly within entities like OFAC—raise serious doubts about Washington’s willingness and ability to uphold any potential commitments.

 

6. The U.S. has made no serious effort to reassure Iran of its “willingness” and “capacity” to lift sanctions. Recent contradictory and maximalist remarks by American officials have further deepened doubts about their intent to reach an agreement.

 

7. The negotiation process faces serious challenges, including the presence of “spoilers.” Israel lies at the heart of these disruptive forces, but others include neoconservatives, hardliners from Trump’s first administration, and certain officials from the Obama and Biden eras. Moreover, the three European countries, feeling sidelined from the talks, have sought to negatively influence the process and are attempting to blackmail both sides using the threat of snapback.

 

8. These negotiations have no connection to the snapback mechanism. The claim that the Iran-U.S. talks are taking place under the shadow of snapback is incorrect. Snapback is neither legitimate nor justified, and the current situation is largely the result of the breach of commitments by the other parties, including the three European states. Snapback is a double-edged sword, and any move by the Europeans to trigger it would be met with a serious response from Iran—with consequences not limited to Iran alone.

 

9. As the talks delve deeper into technical matters, the complexity of issues increases and disagreements are likely to arise, which will slow the pace and prolong discussions. Therefore, the claim that “Iran is negotiating to buy time” is inaccurate. Iran seeks a prompt agreement but will never sacrifice the substance of a deal for the sake of speed.

 

10. Iran is prepared for any scenario, relying on its domestic capabilities, resistance economy, and regional capacities.