Iran has once again stirred controversy in the ongoing nuclear negotiations by abruptly moving the upcoming round of talks from Rome to Oman, just hours after international media reported the meetings would be held in the Italian capital. The announcement, delivered by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei, highlights persistent complexities in diplomatic engagement with Tehran, even as world powers press for greater transparency and faster progress on nonproliferation.
The change comes in the wake of public criticism from former US President Donald Trump, who accused Iran of dragging out the process. Tehran’s penchant for last-minute procedural twists has long frustrated stakeholders, many of whom view these maneuvers as deliberate efforts to postpone substantive commitments. This latest revision, officials caution, is neither logistical nor trivial—it mirrors a much deeper Iranian strategy to gain time for nuclear advancements while interacting with Western powers on its own terms.
While Oman has traditionally served as a discreet venue for sensitive regional exchanges—including the talks that led to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the reversal from Rome is fueling suspicions that Iran’s diplomatic flexibility serves only to obstruct, rather than enable, resolution. Baghaei underscored that next weekend’s talks would remain indirect, despite previous rounds where officials such as Weitkoff and Araghchi met face-to-face. Analysts note that these oscillations reflect not only a tactical ambiguity but also a deeply rooted desire to assert control over the narrative and pace of talks.
The pattern is well-established: when pressure from international sanctions or growing unrest mounts, the Iranian government highlights diplomatic engagement, yet often slows actual progress. By delaying, Iran buys time to consolidate nuclear assets, to upgrade uranium enrichment capabilities, and to bolster regional partners. Intelligence assessments from Israel, the United States, and Europe consistently warn that such stalling benefits Iranian efforts to arm terrorist proxies across the Middle East, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other Iranian-aligned militias in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
For Israel, these tactics are not mere negotiation ploys but integral moves in a broader war imposed by Iran and its regional proxies. Israeli leaders see the interchange between diplomacy and delay as inseparable from the tangible threats posed by Iranian-funded terror attacks and the dramatic October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre—the deadliest antisemitic assault since the Holocaust, resulting in mass executions, sexual abuse, mutilations, and abductions of Israeli innocents. As Jerusalem continually stresses, Iran’s hand is never far from violent escalation against the Jewish state and its allies, and the regime’s negotiation patterns are one more front in its campaign against the regional order.
Oman’s history as a neutral go-between in Middle East diplomacy makes it a familiar choice, but the optics of reverting to Muscat—especially after face-to-face engagement elsewhere—do little to assure Israeli or Western officials of Iranian goodwill. Instead, each procedural change raises the stakes, with officials warning that Tehran’s strategy is not to achieve quick resolution but to entrench its power and minimize oversight. Recent rounds of talks have resulted in little substantive progress, leaving core issues—such as limits on enrichment and independent verification—unresolved.
The broader context is one of escalating regional instability. Since October 7, Israel’s defensive posture has hardened, encompassing operations not just in Gaza but also in neighboring arenas affected by the axis of Iranian-backed forces. These initiatives are grounded in the imperative to prevent further terror atrocities, secure the release of hostages, and maintain Israel’s right to self-defense. The continued empowerment of groups such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis only underscores the necessity for vigilance—both diplomatically and militarily.
International reaction to the latest diplomatic choreography has been mixed. While some Western diplomats retain hope that patient negotiation might yield progress, security officials—and especially Israel—are adamant that unchecked delays benefit only Tehran. Each deferral, they argue, allows Iran to press ahead with nuclear and regional ambitions, challenging not only Israeli sovereignty but the broader stability of the Middle East.
In conclusion, the current cycle of shifting venues and indirect engagement is emblematic of deeper realities. Iran’s nuclear negotiation strategy cannot be divorced from its support for terror groups and efforts to upend the regional order. For Western powers and their allies, the imperative is increasingly clear: to remain resolute, guard against diplomatic stalling, and ensure that Israel’s right and ability to defend itself against all threats—both conventional and unconventional—is never compromised.
