WANA (Jun 07) – As the sixth round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States remains shrouded in uncertainty, four signs point to a shifting landscape in the nuclear dossier: Iran’s imminent response to the latest U.S. proposal, the continuation of talks with Oman at the center, Washington’s growing interest in involving Russia, and its increasing use of the “snapback” mechanism as leverage. Together, these elements offer a clearer picture of the power dynamics shaping the negotiations.

 

1. The “Witkoff Proposal”: Diplomacy Without Incentives

The latest U.S. proposal, delivered by senior diplomat Witkoff, has been described as a letter with a smile—but no signature. Iranian sources have confirmed that Tehran will issue an official response in the coming days. According to Iran’s foreign minister, the reply will be “based on the principles of the Islamic Republic and the Supreme Leader’s fatwa.”

 

Unofficial sources, however, reveal that the proposal demands Iran dismantle key nuclear infrastructure and halt enrichment beyond 60%, without offering any concrete guarantees for sanctions relief or economic benefits.

 

Effectively, the plan resembles a rebranded version of “disarmament-for-agreement”—a formula that Tehran not only rejects but deems incompatible with its sovereign rights under the NPT. While diplomatic channels remain open, the content of the U.S. offer reveals a wide gap between the two sides’ expectations.

Iranian negotiating team in U.S. talks. Social media/ WANA News Agency

2. Continuing Dialogue: The Muscat Bridge Still Standing

Contrary to Western narratives describing the fifth round of Rome talks as a failure, Tehran and Washington have not burned their last bridge. Oman, once again playing an active mediating role, is expected to coordinate the time and venue for the sixth round after receiving Tehran’s response.

 

Notably, Iran’s choice to keep negotiations low-profile and mediated through a neutral party reflects a deliberate strategy: to insulate the talks from Western media spin and maintain control over the diplomatic tempo. The Islamic Republic appears to be keeping the door open to rational diplomacy, while firmly resisting Washington’s maximalist demands. It is a path that avoids both blind confrontation and hasty compromise.

 

3. Russia Enters the Frame: Trump’s Green Light to Moscow?

Diplomatic sources indicate the Trump team is now open to involving Russia in the negotiation process. This move is significant on two fronts: first, as an acknowledgment of Washington’s struggle to pressure Tehran unilaterally; second, as a tactical effort by Trump to share political risk in case the indirect talks collapse.

 

For Trump’s team, Russia’s participation could serve two objectives: to apply “semi-friendly” pressure on Iran—preserving strategic ties while urging de-escalation—and to facilitate a phased deal monitored by a third party capable of offering indirect enforcement guarantees.

 

Tehran, however, views this move with skepticism. While Iran considers its ties with Moscow strategic, it has repeatedly warned that it will not allow any power to act as an American proxy. In short: Moscow may be a partner—but never a representative.

A book with a cover design of the Iran-US negotiations is seen in Tehran

A book with a cover design of the Iran-US negotiations is seen in Tehran, Iran, April 26, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

4. Snapback as Leverage: Who Owns the Clock?

The most powerful tool currently at Washington’s disposal is not military threat, but the snapback clause in UN Security Council Resolution 2231. If reactivated—formally or informally—this mechanism enables the return of sanctions should Iran be found in “violation.”

 

Iranian analysts argue that Washington, even before striking any deal, is using the threat of snapback to push Tehran toward a weak agreement lacking meaningful sanctions relief. Recent U.S. actions at the IAEA—ranging from media pressure to symbolic resolutions—appear less a strategic push and more a time-driven effort to weaken Iran’s position at the negotiating table.

 

From Tehran’s perspective, these pressures signal not strength but desperation, further fueling mistrust and widening the gap to any possible deal. As Iran’s president bluntly put it: “We bow only before God—never before anyone else.”

 

Diplomacy at the Crossroads of Interest and Resistance

What’s unfolding now is not a classic negotiation, but a layered confrontation—one that blends diplomacy, psychological warfare, media manipulation, and power calibration. Iran seeks to preserve a logical path to agreement without retreating from its core principles. Meanwhile, the U.S. is trying to maintain the upper hand through calculated pressure, internal divisions in Tehran, and international mechanisms.

 

The potential entry of new players like Russia may alter the balance. But unless Washington shows a willingness to acknowledge Iran’s security, sovereignty, and regional realities, the talks are likely to remain a cycle of endless dialogue—each round beginning with a diplomatic smile and ending in an official threat.