First round of indirect talks between Iran and the US on Iran's nuclear program ended in Muscat on Saturday.
To know more about the issue we reached out to Dr. Bilgehan Alagoz, a full-time faculty member at the School of Political Science at Marmara University in Istanbul.
Here is the full text of the interview:
The Iran-US talks ended in Oman in a constructive and good atmosphere. What is your assessment?
The Iran-US talks in Oman took place in a constructive and positive atmosphere. This is noteworthy, especially considering the Trump administration’s hardline approach toward Iran during his first term. Trump viewed the JCPOA as flawed, arguing that it enabled Iran to channel sanctions relief into expanding its regional proxy network. Consequently, he withdrew from the deal in 2018, designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019, and authorized the killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020.
In retaliation, Iran escalated its nuclear program well beyond JCPOA limits and restricted IAEA oversight. Although the Biden administration sought diplomatic re-engagement, global developments—such as the war in Ukraine and the Hamas-Israel conflict—exacerbated US-Iran tensions.
Looking ahead, Trump’s potential return to the White House carries significant implications. He has shown a preference for bilateral deals and made it clear he does not seek regime change in Iran. This pragmatic stance, coupled with Iran’s growing economic pressures and the limitations of Chinese and Russian support, seems to have pushed Tehran toward considering new talks.
Both sides appear motivated by a shared desire to avoid military escalation. While the talks in Oman are promising, it’s still early. Initial discussions were procedural; no substantive breakthroughs have been reported yet.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi announced that the talks will continue next Saturday. He said: “If we can finalize the basis in the next meeting, I think we have covered a lot and we can start real talks.” What is your assessment of these words?
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi’s comments reflect both optimism and realism. His words signal a willingness to enter substantive negotiations if foundational issues—such as the structure, scope, and sequencing of talks—are resolved in the next round. This framing also suggests that both sides are currently engaged in establishing the rules of engagement rather than diving into the core issues, which may include sanctions relief, uranium enrichment caps, and regional security clauses.
Following the death of President Raisi, President Pezeshkian has promoted a discourse of “maximum rationality.” In this context, Araqchi’s measured and pragmatic tone is likely aimed at creating a conducive environment for dialogue with a leader known for volatility but also for deal-making. Araqchi is no stranger to these complexities. As one of the chief architects of the original JCPOA, he possesses intimate knowledge of both Iran’s red lines and the psychological landscape of US policymakers. His strategic signaling—tempered yet hopeful—seems crafted to appeal directly to Trump’s desire for a “win” in foreign policy.
Trump, in turn, is expected to approach the negotiations with an agenda focused squarely on Israeli security. His understanding of regional dynamics is filtered through a lens of transactional value—namely, how Iran’s capabilities impact US commitments to Israel under the Qualitative Military Edge (QME) doctrine. From Trump’s standpoint, any nuclear capacity in Iran that could pose a future threat to Israel represents not just a security issue but also a financial liability for Washington.
Araqchi's remarks are thus part of a broader diplomatic choreography—intended to keep the door open for serious negotiations while setting the stage for a slow, strategic dance. Whether “real talks” can begin will depend on whether both parties can move beyond symbolic gestures and agree on mutually acceptable terms of engagement.
It seems that the Iranian Foreign Minister’s positive statements about the talks indicate that the framework for the talks is solely focused on the nuclear issue. What is your assessment?
Throughout both his first term and his recent election campaign, Trump has repeatedly stated that he does not seek regime change in Iran. His primary concern is ensuring that Iran does not pose a security threat to Israel. During his first presidency, one of his main areas of focus was Iran’s regional proxy network, and the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani reflected this priority—it was a direct strike against Iran’s “axis of resistance” strategy.
However, in 2024, that strategy has undergone structural changes. Most notably, with the fall of the Assad in Syria, Iran’s direct access to the Eastern Mediterranean has been severely diminished. This shift creates a new context in which Trump can focus solely on Iran’s nuclear program during negotiations. Rather than addressing Iran’s proxy operations directly with Tehran, the U.S. now appears to prefer supporting regional actors in countering Iranian influence on the ground.
In this regard, we can expect increased U.S. pressure on the Iraqi government, where Iran still maintains significant influence. In Yemen, the U.S. has already begun implementing a robust military containment policy. In Syria, a new administration has begun to distance itself from Tehran. And in Lebanon, efforts to further diminish Iranian influence are likely underway.
Given this context, the Iranian Foreign Minister’s statements make sense. At this stage, it is accurate to say that the only issue Trump is willing to negotiate with Iran is its nuclear program. However, secondary issues, such as Iran’s ballistic missile program, may still emerge, though they appear subordinate to the nuclear agenda at this stage. This nuclear-focused framework makes strategic sense, offering a clearer path to progress in the talks.
Araqchi announced that the US wants the talks to conclude quickly, while achieving this goal is difficult and will require the appropriate will of the parties. What is your assessment of the overall framework of the agreement? Will the agreed formula be a comprehensive agreement or may a temporary agreement be reached to reach a comprehensive agreement first?
The framework of the Iran-US nuclear talks, as seen in the Oman discussions, is shaped by complex dynamics and competing interests. Araqchi’s observation that the US seeks a swift resolution while facing significant challenges highlights the difficulty of aligning priorities. A key factor is the Israel lobby’s formidable influence over the US Congress, which President Trump must carefully balance to advance any agreement.
Organizations like AIPAC wield significant power through substantial financial contributions and bipartisan relationships, ensuring that any Iran deal prioritizes Israel’s security. The lobby demands either the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program or strict limits extending to ballistic missiles and regional activities. Congress, often reflecting these priorities, can constrain Trump’s options by reinforcing sanctions or obstructing their relaxation, particularly as lawmakers respond to the lobby’s advocacy.
This domestic pressure is amplified by the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, scheduled for November 2026, when all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats will be contested. With candidates wary of the Israel lobby’s electoral influence, many may adopt cautious or hardline stances on Iran, making Congressional approval of a deal politically sensitive. Consequently, a comprehensive agreement before the midterms is unlikely, as Trump may delay final commitments to avoid clashing with a skeptical Congress during this period.
Trump is a determined leader who knows exactly what he wants and cannot be swayed by empty rhetoric. While he prefers diplomacy to achieve his goals, he is equally prepared to employ decisive actions if necessary. Iran should not assume that Trump’s commitment to a deal means it can impose all its demands, as his "America First" and MAGA policies drive him to consistently project strength and resolve to his domestic audience. Recognizing this dynamic is crucial for Iran to ensure the success of the negotiation process.
Given these constraints, a comprehensive agreement in the near term appears improbable. Iran’s determination to retain elements of its nuclear program clashes with the stringent demands of Congress and the Israel lobby, creating a wide gap. A temporary agreement, however, is more feasible. Such a deal could involve limited sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment, serving as a confidence-building measure to sustain dialogue. This interim step would still require careful design to navigate Congressional scrutiny, heavily shaped by the lobby’s influence. Trump’s ability to move forward hinges on managing these domestic and international pressures. A final, comprehensive agreement may only become viable after the 2026 midterms, when the political landscape stabilizes, enabling bolder diplomatic efforts toward a lasting resolution.
Interview by Payman Yazdani
