Trump, Khamenei, and the return to Muscat

Twelve years ago, former US President Barack Obama’s team and Iran began secret negotiations that lasted two years and led to what became known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It was implemented for three years before President Donald Trump came into office and courageously tore the treaty apart, despite it having been ratified by the UN. He was succeeded by President Joe Biden, who chose not to revive it, turning the deal into a thing of the past.

Though the agreement was marketed as a peace initiative, its aftermath brought more crises and conflicts than existed before its signing.

Today, the Americans and Iranians are returning to negotiations under critical circumstances. So, how will the new Muscat talks differ from the 2013 negotiations?

Trump has said that his first choice is a solution through negotiation, and if that fails, his second option is war. In my view, both parties are inclined toward a political solution, despite the aggressive rhetoric.

But what kind of solution are they talking about? A “negotiated solution” is a broad concept. Obama did, in fact, achieve an agreement that compelled Iran to give up enriched uranium, which was then sent to Russia.

But the nuclear issue was merely a bargaining chip that Iran skillfully used to preserve its regional and international military activities. Obama deliberately sidelined key stakeholders from the talks, particularly the Gulf states and Israel, and ignored the concerns of countries in the region.

The Iranians are not in a favorable position

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Iran treated the agreement as a license to expand its influence and dominate Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza, while threatening others. Tehran spent over $100 billion in frozen assets — released with Washington’s approval — on military activities that destabilized much of the region.

In the negotiations in Oman’s capital, the faces may have been new, but the core issues remained the same as those raised in March 2013: halting Iran’s militarized nuclear program, ending its support and funding for regional militias, and refraining from interfering in other nations’ affairs. Obama had settled for a deal focused solely on the nuclear issue.

Can we place our bets on Trump?

So far, the US leader’s approach has been clearer and more assertive compared with that of Obama, who backed down in the face of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and retreated from his infamous “red line” after the Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria.

Trump had already set the stage politically ahead of the Muscat negotiations. He has deployed more US forces to the region, launched operations to dismantle Houthi capabilities in Yemen, tasked his envoy Steve Witkoff with initiating contact with Tehran, sent a direct message to Iran’s supreme leader, imposed new sanctions on Iranian oil exports, welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, and publicly spoke of the military option.

All these steps aim to strengthen his hand at the negotiating table.

The Iranians are not in a favorable position, but they have responded with their own moves. Khamenei adopted a hard-line stance, while leaving it to the government to give final approval. Tehran issued its response to Trump via an opinion piece by its foreign minister in The Washington Post.

On the ground, Hezbollah no longer seems to be complying with its agreement with Israel, and the Houthis have rejected Washington’s call to stop attacking maritime navigation — despite being bombed about a month ago — which is likely to strengthen Tehran’s negotiating position.

The balance of power now tilts toward Israel

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

The most significant detail in Trump’s leaked letter to Khamenei is that he expressed his willingness to negotiate, but set a strict two-month deadline to reach a deal, which might be extended if the initial talks show promise. However, he also warned that if an agreement is not reached, Iran’s nuclear facilities would be targeted — and “Israel would carry out the mission,” as he declared while seated next to Netanyahu.

This scene is entirely different from the atmosphere surrounding Obama’s negotiations and his conciliatory image. Trump comes into this with a fearsome reputation for not shying away from confronting half the world. His team is now heading to the table as Iran finds itself in its weakest state — after Israel dismantled its foreign arms, namely Hezbollah and Hamas, and with the Assad regime collapsed.

Trump has a strong chance of securing an unprecedented “good” deal with Iran if he maintains his firm stance and if his team can counter Tehran’s shrewd tactics. The balance of power now tilts toward Israel, which has crippled Iran’s regional proxies, stripping Tehran of the “proxy card” it once used as a threat and negotiation tool. Additionally, Trump has begun delivering on his promise to deprive Tehran of oil revenue, placing the country in financial distress unless it reaches a deal.

Therefore, Iran’s options have become limited, making a real possibility for peace more tangible, starting in Muscat and potentially continuing with broader regional peace agreements.

• Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed