Dr. Sinan Shaqdih: The launch of the dialogue, whether directly or indirectly, is a positive indication that Trump is seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran.

Mustafa Ibrahim: The nuclear issue represents a source of strength for Tehran, which is what worries Israel, even if an agreement is reached, whatever its form.

Dr. Thaer Abu Ras: The likelihood of a confrontation between the US and Iran has declined in the short term, but all scenarios remain possible in the strategic term.

Dr. Ali Al-Awar: Tehran, after the decline of its influence in Syria and Hezbollah's political discourse, has come to see an understanding with Washington as the best option.

Abdul Rahim Abu Jamous: Trump dealt Netanyahu a crushing political blow by suddenly announcing direct negotiations with Iran.

US President Donald Trump's announcement of his intention to begin negotiations with Iran has opened the door to a peaceful settlement of the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program. This comes after the drums of war had become so loud in the recent period that many observers and politicians believed that an American and Israeli attack on Iran was imminent. This was the option that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had hoped for and wanted, and he expected that his last visit, or more precisely his summons, to the White House and his meeting with the US president would be to develop operational plans and set the zero hour for the launch of the attack.

Although the nature of the negotiations scheduled to begin today, Saturday, in the Omani capital, Muscat, between Washington and Tehran remains unclear—whether direct or indirect—they represent a glimmer of hope for a reduction in the risk of military escalation, at least in the short term. It remains unclear whether these negotiations will lead to a new nuclear agreement similar to the previous one reached under former President Barack Obama.

Political writers and analysts who spoke to Al-Quds considered the launch of the dialogue, whether direct or indirect, a positive indication that Trump is seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran. They asserted that Trump dealt Netanyahu a crushing political blow by suddenly announcing direct negotiations with Iran.

A dialogue about starting negotiations, not actual negotiations.

Dr. Sinan Shaqdih, an analyst specializing in American affairs, said there is a clear lack of clarity regarding the nature of the upcoming US-Iranian talks in the Omani capital, Muscat.

While US President Donald Trump described the dialogue as direct, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the talks would be "indirect and at a high level," and that the meeting represented an opportunity as much as a test. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said on Tuesday, "It's at the starting point," adding, "It's not a negotiation, it's a meeting, and that's the commitment."

Shaqdih emphasized that this discrepancy in statements between the two sides, and even within the US administration itself, reveals Washington's lack of a unified vision regarding what it hopes to achieve from this dialogue, whether direct or indirect. However, it appears that the Muscat dialogue is currently focused on the possibility of initiating negotiations, rather than actual negotiations as of yet.

He added, "Despite this, the mere initiation of dialogue, whether direct or indirect, is a positive indication that Trump is seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran, away from an approach of escalation and exaggerated demands, an approach that appears to be based on his business background and the philosophy of his book, The Art of the Deal."

Shaqdih pointed out that this approach contradicts the desires of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is pushing for a military solution, highlighting signs of a conflict in the US-Israeli agendas since Trump came to power.

Iran does not want nuclear weapons for religious reasons.

He predicted that these talks, if they continue, would lead to a political breakthrough that could lead to the signing of a new agreement, especially since the Iranian leadership has repeatedly declared that it does not seek to manufacture nuclear weapons, citing religious fatwas prohibiting the production of nuclear bombs.

Shaqdih did not rule out the possibility that Iran might agree to sign a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons, in exchange for a US commitment not to participate in any aggression against it and to lift the economic sanctions imposed on it.

He said: "What reinforces this possibility is the leaked news about the content of Trump's message to the Iranian leadership, which arrived via the UAE. The information indicates that Trump did not demand the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program in the Libyan style, but rather his focus was on the redistribution of economic gains, demanding that American companies replace their European counterparts, which are believed to have obtained approximately 90% of the economic privileges in Iran after the signing of the first nuclear agreement, from which he later withdrew.

Shaqdih emphasized that the mere launch of the dialogue indicates a de-escalation in the Middle East, while reaching an agreement represents a shared goal for both sides: Iran, which seeks to lift economic sanctions, and the United States, which wants to devote itself to confronting China and addressing its domestic issues. This is what Trump's populist electoral base, which embraces the slogan "America First" and opposes waging or financing new wars, is demanding.

Netanyahu and the Iranian nuclear file

For his part, writer and political analyst Mustafa Ibrahim asserted that the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump at the White House reflected Netanyahu's insistence on keeping the Iranian issue at the top of his agenda.

He pointed out that this issue has been one of his most prominent political goals since his election victory in 2009, and in his view, the primary justification for his long tenure in power, under the slogan of "confronting Iran."

Ibrahim added: "The past few years have witnessed what resembles a covert war between Israel and Iran, marked by Israeli strikes inside Iranian territory and the assassination of a number of scientists associated with the Iranian nuclear program."

He continued: Trump's rise to power in 2016 marked a shift in Washington's policy toward Iran, as he revoked the nuclear agreement reached in 2015 under the Barack Obama administration in 2018.

Ibrahim noted that Trump, at the beginning of his current term, issued several threats to halt Iran's nuclear program through military strikes, but his political behavior has always been characterized by a "merchant" attitude, approaching international crises through the logic of deals and financial interests.

Back away from the option of military confrontation

Ibrahim explained that the surprise Netanyahu and Israel received was Trump's announcement of his readiness to begin direct or indirect negotiations with Iran in the Omani capital, Muscat, which was seen as a retreat from the option of military confrontation.

Ibrahim emphasized that the likelihood of military escalation between Washington and Tehran has significantly diminished, especially if a new agreement similar to the one signed in 2015 is reached. He explained that the current US administration's slogan is to reduce wars and seek political solutions, which makes it likely that negotiations will continue with the goal of reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement.

He believed that this American approach was not in Netanyahu's or Israel's interest, as Netanyahu had long desired that Washington work to dismantle all Iranian nuclear and military capabilities.

Ibrahim considered the nuclear issue a source of strength for Tehran, a concern for Israel even if an agreement is reached, whatever its form, because it conflicts with the Israeli vision, which Netanyahu has considered the core of his political strategy for years.

Resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through peaceful means

Dr. Thaer Abu Ras, a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Maryland, Washington, said that the likelihood of a confrontation between the United States and Iran has declined in the short term, but all scenarios remain possible in the strategic term.

He explained that the United States appears interested in entering into negotiations, as part of US President Donald Trump's campaign pledge to seek a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Abu Ras added: "Trump has repeatedly stated, both during and before his election campaign, that if he returns to the White House, he will seek to sign a new nuclear agreement with Iran that is better than the one concluded under former President Barack Obama.

He pointed out that the US entry into negotiations with Iran is not surprising, explaining that there are three possible scenarios for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue.

Keeping things as they are while waiting for a new opportunity

The first scenario is that the negotiations succeed and a new agreement is reached that is not limited to the nuclear aspects, but may include a comprehensive deal that allows Iran to integrate into the global economy.

The second scenario is the failure of the negotiations, which could lead to an escalation in rhetoric and possibly a subsequent military escalation, a possibility that remains.

Abu Ras stated that the third scenario is the most realistic, and involves conducting negotiations that fail to materially succeed, but without officially declaring their failure or leading to a military confrontation. This leaves things as they are, awaiting a new opportunity for dialogue at a later date.

Abu Ras concluded his remarks by emphasizing that these three possibilities represent the most realistic scenarios under the current circumstances.

Iran threatens to deploy its missile arsenal

For his part, Dr. Ali Al-Awar, a specialist in regional and international conflict resolution, said that the recent statements made by the Iranian Chief of Staff, in which he indicated Iran's readiness to launch 1,000 missiles at Israel and US bases in the Middle East, come amid ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran to reach a settlement regarding the Iranian nuclear issue.

Al-Awar explained that US President Donald Trump informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during their recent meeting, that direct negotiations between the United States and Iran will be held next Saturday, in a move aimed at formulating a new nuclear agreement.

He added that matters are moving toward a possible political settlement on the nuclear issue, but that this does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the specter of military confrontation. He noted that Israel, through its Hebrew media, continues to harbor the military option and considers striking Iranian nuclear facilities a strategic priority.

Al-Awar explained that Israel's unwavering position stems from a complete rejection of Iran possessing any nuclear capability. This position is shared by the United States, but it does not necessarily translate into military action, especially since Israel cannot launch a strike on Iran without prior coordination with Washington, and even with direct American participation in the operation.

An agreement between Tehran and Washington is the most likely scenario.

Al-Awar questioned whether Israel was still determined to launch a military strike against Iran, noting that Tel Aviv still views Iran as its primary enemy and leader of the so-called "axis of evil." He also believes that launching a powerful strike against Tehran, particularly against its nuclear facilities, is a strategic necessity.

However, with the launch of negotiations between Washington and Tehran, Al-Awar believes the situation is moving toward a settlement, suggesting a likely scenario of a new political agreement between the two countries on the nuclear issue.

He stressed that Iran realizes that entering into a war with the United States would be devastating and could threaten the stability of the regime in Tehran, so it will work to avoid any military escalation.

He pointed out that Iran is currently leaning toward maintaining its internal stability and continuing its development projects, especially in light of increasing US pressure. He explained that Tehran, following the decline of its influence in Syria and Hezbollah's political rhetoric in Lebanon, now believes that reaching an understanding with Washington is the best option.

Al-Awar concluded his statement to Al-Quds by stating that Tehran's strategic, security, and military calculations are now leaning toward a political settlement that guarantees its interests and avoids risks. He noted that a new agreement between Tehran and Washington is the most likely scenario, despite attempts by Netanyahu and the Israeli media to inflame tensions.

A "gray page" in the history of Israeli-American relations

For his part, writer and political analyst Abdul Rahim Abu Jamous said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington last Monday represents a "grey page" in the history of Israeli-American relations. He noted that it was fraught with great political disappointment for Netanyahu, despite the lavish protocol reception he received.

Abu Jamous explained that Netanyahu, who arrived in Washington buoyed by his touted victories over Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, had hoped to secure American support for a potential attack on Iran, along with economic relief related to the customs duties that had burdened the Israeli economy, but he received nothing of the above.

He pointed out that US President Donald Trump dealt Netanyahu a crushing political blow when he announced, without prior warning, that he would hold direct negotiations with Iran in the Omani capital, Muscat, on Saturday, April 12, a move that was an unexpected political shock to the Israeli prime minister.

No war now, no more concessions

He added that this announcement coincided with Netanyahu's meetings at the White House, particularly with Trump's Middle East envoy, which was seen as a clear American message: no war now, no further concessions.

Abu Jamous emphasized that the Trump administration, through this move, revealed its adoption of negotiations with Iran as the only solution, despite escalation in several arenas, such as Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. He explained that all these tensions remained under control and did not cross the red lines, thanks to ongoing diplomatic efforts to avoid direct military confrontation.

He pointed out that there had been previous exchanges of diplomatic messages between the United States and Iran, and between Iran and Israel, but that these messages were controlled and understood by both parties, indicating a lack of desire to reach a comprehensive confrontation.

He also considered the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement, which was concluded on March 9, 2023, under Chinese auspices in Beijing, to be an important breakthrough toward de-escalation in the region, and sent a message that the Iranian crisis can be resolved through negotiations, especially given both sides' commitment to the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs.

Gulf sensitivity to Iranian expansion

He added that the United States and Israel had been exploiting Gulf sensitivity toward Iranian expansion to impose American hegemony and justify the establishment of Israeli-Arab alliances to confront the Iranian threat, but the Iran-Saudi agreement has changed this context.

Abu Jamous pointed out that Trump's announcement of the launch of direct negotiations with Iran on April 12 in Muscat represents a strategic development aimed at removing the specter of war from the region. He emphasized that neither Iran nor the United States seeks war, and that the Trump administration seeks to defuse tensions, based on the belief that wars are destructive and costly for everyone.

He emphasized that the conflict with Iran is not an existential one, whether with Israel, the United States, or even with Arab states. This opens the door to a comprehensive political solution that serves the interests of all parties, emphasizing that negotiations are the path the region must take.

Concluding his statement to Al-Quds, Abu Jamous emphasized that these developments represent a major diplomatic defeat for the Israeli government, led by Netanyahu, which had been betting on inflaming the situation to impose its agenda on the region through the Iranian threat.