Trump, Khamenei, and the Return to Muscat

Twelve years ago, former US President Barack Obama's team and Iran began secret negotiations for two years, achieving what became known as the "Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement," which was implemented for three years. President Donald Trump, in his first term, tore it up with an unprecedented force, despite its ratification by the United Nations. His successor, President Joe Biden, decided not to resume it, and it became history. The agreement, which bore the title of "peace," led to more crises and conflicts than had existed before its signing.

Today, the Americans and Iranians are returning to negotiations under critical circumstances. How will the new Muscat negotiations differ from the 2013 negotiations?

President Trump stated that his first option is a negotiated solution, and if that fails, his second option is war. In my opinion, both sides desire a political solution, despite the rhetoric.

But what solution are they talking about? A "negotiated solution" is a broad concept. Obama was indeed able to achieve an agreement that obligated Iran to give up its enriched uranium, which was sent to Russia. However, the nuclear deal was merely a bargaining chip in Iran's hands, which it successfully used to maintain its regional and international military activities. Obama deliberately excluded the relevant parties from the negotiations, specifically the Gulf states and Israel, and, to top it all off, ignored the concerns of the countries in the region. Iran viewed the agreement as a license to expand and dominate Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza, threatening the rest. Tehran spent more than $100 billion frozen in funds that Washington had allowed Iran to use, which went to finance its military activities that destabilized much of the region.

There are new faces in the negotiations in the Omani capital, but the core issues remain the same as those raised in March 2013: Iran halting its military-grade nuclear program, ending its support and funding of militias in the region, and refraining from interfering in the affairs of other countries. Obama limited himself to agreeing on one issue: the nuclear issue.

Can we bet on Trump?

So far, his approach has been clearer and more assertive than Obama's, who was complacent toward Iran's Supreme Leader and backed down from his famous threat to the Assad regime, which used chemical weapons in the Syrian war.

Trump set the political stage in advance of the Muscat negotiations. He dispatched more troops to the region, began destroying Houthi capabilities in Yemen, assigned his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to communicate with Tehran, sent a direct message to the Supreme Leader, imposed new sanctions on Iran's oil exports, hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, and discussed the military option.

A series of steps to strengthen his position in the negotiations.

The Iranians are not in a good position, but they have responded with steps. The Supreme Leader has taken a hard line, leaving it to the government to approve. Tehran announced its position in response to Trump in an op-ed by the Secretary of State in the Washington Post. On the ground, Hezbollah no longer appears to be cooperating in implementing its agreement with Israel, and the Houthis have rejected Washington's call to halt attacks on maritime shipping, despite having been shelling them for about a month, perhaps to strengthen Tehran's negotiating position.

The most important aspect of Trump's leaked letter to Khamenei was that he affirmed his desire to negotiate, but stipulated only two months for reaching an agreement, a period he would likely extend if the start of the negotiations was encouraging. He then threatened Iran with targeting its nuclear facilities if no agreement was reached. "Israel will do the job," he declared while sitting with Netanyahu.

This scene is completely different from the atmosphere of Obama's negotiations and his conciliatory image. Trump has a terrible reputation for not being afraid to confront half the world. His team arrives to negotiate with Iran in the worst possible position after Israel destroyed its foreign arms—Hezbollah and Hamas—and the Assad regime fell.

Trump's chances of securing an unprecedented "good" agreement with Iran will be great if he continues to insist on his demands, and his team is able to contain Tehran's cunning tactics. The balance of power has tilted in Israel's favor after it destroyed Iran's external forces, which strips it of the "proxy" card it used to threaten the world and use in negotiations in Muscat negotiations. In addition, Trump has begun implementing his promise to deprive Tehran of selling most of its oil, and it will be in a difficult financial situation unless it reaches an agreement with Trump.

Therefore, we see that Iran's options are now limited, which presents us with the real possibility of finally achieving peace in the region, beginning with Muscat and later completed through regional peace agreements.