As diplomatic activity intensifies in the Middle East, former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has urged that upcoming negotiations between Iran and the United States be direct rather than indirect, warning that prolonged, mediated talks could exacerbate regional instability. Rouhani’s statement, made ahead of scheduled discussions in Oman, places renewed focus on Iran’s dual-track approach—pursuing dialogue while coordinating a region-wide network of armed proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria, all orchestrated and financed by Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
This development comes at a time when tensions remain high following the October 7th massacre—the deadliest terrorist attack against Jews since the Holocaust—and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza. The attack, led by Hamas with direct Iranian sponsorship, opened a new chapter in Iran’s longstanding strategy of regional destabilization and has brought harsh scrutiny of international negotiations with the Iranian regime.
The Stakes in Diplomatic Maneuvering
The talks in Oman, set to commence Saturday, represent the latest in a series of diplomatic efforts to address Iran’s provocative advances in its nuclear program, ongoing proxy violence against Israel and U.S. interests, and a pervasive sense of insecurity that has shaken the region. Diplomatic sources indicate that while the Biden administration is open to negotiations, American officials remain wary of indirect channels that allow Tehran to deflect accountability and continue arming its terror proxies unchecked.
Rouhani stressed that indirect talks, as in previous nuclear negotiations, could stretch on fruitlessly for decades, allowing Iran more time to pursue its nuclear ambitions and maintain plausible deniability regarding its orchestration of regional attacks. The United States, especially during the Trump administration, had previously insisted on direct negotiations to curtail such delaying tactics—a position widely shared by Israeli leaders who view Iranian nuclearization and its proxy strategy as existential threats.
Direct Negotiations Versus Strategic Delay
Iran’s diplomatic posture has a long history of oscillating between engagement and stalling. The JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, was reached only after years of indirect negotiation and layers of intermediaries—a process Rouhani referenced in his statement by warning that indirect talks could render peace efforts inert. Even after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, Iran’s pursuit of ballistic missile development, enrichment beyond civilian needs, and support for terror groups continued virtually unabated.
When the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, citing these very violations and escalating regional aggression, prospects for meaningful direct engagement dimmed and tensions spiked, with Iran increasing its attacks through proxies as well as stepping up uranium enrichment. In response, both American and Israeli security officials have called for a more robust approach to Iranian duplicity—a position underscored by the events of October 7 and the subsequent discovery of Iranian weapons and training throughout the Gaza conflict.
The Humanitarian Crisis and War Crimes
The ongoing Israeli campaign has brought renewed attention to the dire situation of hostages held by Hamas inside Gaza—a crisis emblematic of Iran’s strategy to use civilians as bargaining chips while evading direct military confrontation. The abduction of Israeli and foreign nationals has been accompanied by well-documented war crimes: executions, torture, and systematic abuse, all deeply rooted in Tehran’s regional doctrine.
Despite mounting international pressures for ceasefire and negotiations, Israeli policymakers stress that true de-escalation can only occur if Iran ceases its support for terror and agrees to verifiable limits on its military programs. Until then, the war continues to widen, with Iranian arms fueling not only the conflict in Gaza but also upticks in violence along Israel’s northern frontier, in the Red Sea, and in Syria and Iraq.
The Global Response and Future Prospects
While Europe has often advocated a conciliatory approach, recent events have shifted perspectives across Western capitals, with a growing realization that Iran’s ambitions threaten not only Israel but also global stability. The United States, currently leading efforts to broker dialogue in Oman, nonetheless maintains a posture of strategic ambiguity—insisting that Iran’s nuclear activity, terror sponsorship, and hostage diplomacy are unacceptable, but remaining cautious about the prospects of real progress without direct engagement.
For Israel, the imperative remains unchanged: peace and stability can only be achieved by confronting the source of regional terror. The Israeli government continues to demand that any negotiation with Iran be transparent, direct, and enforceable, with clear consequences for violations—whether in the form of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or, if necessary, military intervention.
Conclusion: The Price of Delay
Rouhani’s call for direct talks is both a diplomatic signal and a warning. Protracted, indirect engagement has historically served Tehran’s interests by enabling its regional campaigns and nuclear advances without meaningful accountability. As discussions resume in Oman, the international community faces a stark choice: persist with indirect, endless negotiation and risk further escalation, or confront Iran’s regime directly—with unity, clarity, and the resolve necessary to defend the principles of peace and security in the Middle East.
The stakes for Israel, and for the democratic world, remain immense. The region stands at a crossroads—between a future shaped by continued terror and one respecting the sovereignty and security of nations determined to resist violence. The path chosen in the coming days will resonate far beyond Oman’s negotiating rooms, affecting hostages in Gaza, communities across Israel, and the future peace of an entire region.
