Traditional and American mediators who only understand the language of war
Despite Iran’s positive efforts and steps, Europe and the United States view negotiation as a continuation of the path of war to impose their own demands. By insisting on excessive demands, they have effectively brought diplomatic processes to a standstill.
Hedayat Javid – Journalist:
For those who monitor and track political news and its nuances, the publication of a photo from last Tuesday’s meeting of interior ministers of member countries of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) in Tehran was noteworthy. This summit, held again in Iran after 15 years, featured the presence of a high-ranking Omani official as a guest—a notable occurrence in a gathering where Arab states are typically absent—alongside the 10 ECO members.
Hamood bin Faisal Al Bu Said, the Interior Minister of Oman, had also met with Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, prior to this event. This occurrence has fueled speculation that the Omani Interior Minister is carrying a message from Western parties to Iran.
A mere four days after this event, the sudden, few-hour trip by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs to Muscat has further prompted analysts and media to contemplate the backstory of the diplomatic consultations between Iranian and Omani officials in each other’s capitals. This development has pushed the question to the forefront of news headlines: Is the southern neighbor seeking to mediate once again in the nuclear dossier?
The relationship between Tehran and European countries and the United States is at a complete impasse, influenced by the attacks on Iranian soil by the United States and the Zionist regime, the subsequent activation of the snapback mechanism by the European Union, and the collapse of the JCPOA. These days, various parties, including Egypt and Russia, have also stepped in, hoping to find a way out of this situation, but so far, they have not gotten anywhere. These diplomatic efforts are occurring at a time when, following the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, the role and initiative of traditional mediators like Oman and Qatar in the nuclear dossier have diminished, and they have been somewhat sidelined.
However, Tehran and Muscat have historically maintained friendly relations, and currently, various issues—from the Yemen file to discussions about holding joint military exercises, the Palestinian issue, and reviewing regional developments—are on the agendas of both sides. Nevertheless, it is certain that behind the sudden, short trips by officials from both sides to each other’s capitals, a more important and urgent matter must be sought.
The Iraqi media outlet Baghdad Today has linked this event to the nuclear dossier, claiming that Iran received a message from Washington through Oman. According to these sources, the message pertains to the potential resumption of negotiations that were halted last June, and in it, the Trump administration expressed its willingness to initiate new dialogues and reach a fresh agreement with Tehran.
However, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs yesterday denied this claim. Elaborating on the agenda of his recent meeting with Omani officials on his personal social media page, he wrote: “After a short but successful trip to Oman, I have returned to Tehran. I held productive meetings on bilateral, regional, and international issues. We highly value our regular consultations with our brothers in Oman. Oman is a trustworthy neighbor and an essential partner, with whom we share excellent relations and historical ties.”
Despite this clear message from Majid Takht-Ravanchi denying negotiations with the West, given the existing facts, the topic of message exchanges between Iran and the United States through Oman is not a strange occurrence. This issue can be traced in the recent statements of Abbas Araghchi, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In an interview with Al Jazeera yesterday, Araghchi emphasized the Islamic Republic’s readiness to counter any aggressive actions by the Zionist regime, stating: “Reaching a fair agreement is possible, but Washington presented unacceptable and impossible conditions… We have no desire for direct negotiations with Washington, but we can agree on a framework for indirect talks.”
These statements indicate that despite deep skepticism towards the diplomatic approach, particularly regarding the Trump administration, Iranian officials are signaling through such positioning that they have not completely closed the window for negotiation. However, Takht-Ravanchi had earlier stated at a press conference in Oman: “The Trump administration has not shown a readiness to negotiate based on the principle of equality, which leaves Iran seeing no justification for continuing talks under the current circumstances.”
This means that despite Iran’s positive efforts and steps, the opposing parties in Europe and the United States view negotiation as a continuation of the path of war to impose their own demands. By insisting on excessive demands, they have effectively brought diplomatic processes to a standstill. However, they aim, through deception and propaganda claiming they seek negotiations with Tehran—and by predicting the potential failure of Oman’s mediation—to highlight that it was the Islamic Republic that rejected it. This is how the conspiracy puzzle against Iran is being assembled, and it could serve as a pretext for increasing pressure on the country.
The editorial from yesterday’s Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth fits precisely within this context. Aligning with the campaign to increase pressure on Iran, this media outlet writes: “Tehran has not and will not change its course. From the perspective of senior Tehran officials, preserving the nuclear option, rebuilding military capability, and continuing support for the Axis of Resistance are now even more essential than before. However, under these circumstances, Israel must not retreat but rather must capitalize on the situation for its own benefit.”
Source: Qods Newspaper, No. 10782, Page 2