A temporary shift from a defensive stance to diplomacy has emerged in Oman, yet the path remains extremely narrow, and every step forward is fraught with the risk of a confrontation no one desires—but everyone is preparing for.
اضافة اعلان
This is reported by the New York Times in a report by its Berlin-based diplomatic correspondent, Steven Erlanger, noting that U.S. President Donald Trump finds himself once again at the negotiating table with his arch-rival in Tehran, following a dramatic turn that reflects the complexities of the Middle East geopolitical landscape.
Erlanger adds that the negotiations—starting “on a good note” with formal handshakes—face structural challenges.
Tehran’s Strategy and Trump’s Goals
The report highlights that Tehran is currently relying on its old strategy of “prolonged negotiations” to buy time, hoping Trump will be driven by an urgent desire for a “quick victory” to boost his political standing without being drawn into a full-scale regional war.
Conversely, Trump reportedly understands that any prolonged conflict could drain the U.S. economy and anger his domestic base, which opposes endless wars, leading him to prefer an agreement that grants him the title of “peacemaker” without getting entangled in the region’s volatile dynamics.
Erlanger explains that the “narrow path” stems from the huge gap between expectations and demands: Washington still insists on “zero enrichment,” dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, and cutting off Iran’s regional proxies.
Tehran, however, describes these demands as a “call for total surrender,” not a basis for negotiation, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasizing that the right to enrichment and defensive capabilities are non-negotiable.
Analysts’ View
Analysts note that Trump faces a real dilemma: if he concedes on enrichment levels, he risks reproducing the 2015 agreement, which he previously called “the worst in history”; if he maintains a hardline stance, the diplomatic track could hit a dead end.
U.S. Insistence Unacceptable to Tehran
Erlanger adds that Washington’s insistence that any new agreement be “permanent” and free from expiration dates puts Iranian negotiators in a difficult position, as it is seen as undermining the core of the regime and its deterrence capability.
Furthermore, the report highlights Israeli concerns as an additional pressure factor narrowing diplomatic maneuvering space, as Israel closely monitors any easing of sanctions without ironclad security guarantees for nuclear and missile facilities.
Trump’s Dilemma and the Risk of Escalation
The report quotes analysts warning that Trump’s dilemma could lead to a military option: concessions on enrichment could recreate the 2015 deal he opposed, while rigid stances risk deadlock, potentially forcing military action to preserve his political credibility.
Erlanger concludes that returning to diplomacy appears to be a “last chance” to avoid a major escalation, yet it is constrained by historical distrust and conflicting strategic interests. He warns that Tehran’s gamble on Trump’s patience, combined with Trump’s bet on Iran’s weakness under sanctions and domestic protests, could escalate into an intense military confrontation if neither side finds a middle path along this narrow, high-risk route.
— (Agencies)
