Abstract
In recent years, amid persistent tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, a series of informal and indirect negotiations has taken place with the mediating role of Oman. These talks, held first in Muscat, then in Rome, and again in Muscat, involved senior representatives from both sides: Seyed Abbas Araqchi representing Iran, and Steve Witkoff on behalf of the United States. Adopting an analytical approach, the present study compares the three negotiation rounds—examining variations in venue and negotiation framework, the scope of the topics discussed, and the mediating function of Oman. The aim is to assess how geopolitical circumstances, delegation composition, and the nature of the issues addressed have shaped the trajectory of Tehran–Washington diplomacy.
Introduction
Despite the formal severance of diplomatic relations since 1980, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have, at various points, engaged in indirect negotiations mediated by third-party states. Oman, owing to its balanced diplomatic relations with both nations and its non-confrontational foreign policy posture, has consistently played a pivotal role in enabling such dialogue. A comparative analysis of these three negotiation rounds reveals that the nature of the issues discussed, the degree of negotiations, and even the venues of the talks have conveyed distinct messages to the parties involved and to the broader region.
1. Comparison of Venues: Rome and Muscat a) Muscat: A Return to the Tradition of Regional Neutrality
In Muscat, the atmosphere of dialogue was notably more cordial and flexible, consistent with the historical precedent of Iran–U.S. negotiations—such as those that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Oman acted as the official host in this round, with the talks taking place on its own soil, reflecting a renewed confidence of both parties in Muscat’s traditional role as a regional mediator capable of de-escalating tensions.
b) Rome: European Neutrality Framed by Multilateral Diplomacy
Although orchestrated by Oman, the negotiations held in Rome symbolized an effort to garner European support, mitigate regional pressures, and signal a non-security message from the Iranian side. As a neutral European location, Rome offered a civilian non-military setting for dialogue under the framework of standard formal international dialogue.
2. Composition of Delegations and Level of Negotiations
a) Muscat Talks: Security and Strategic Representatives
In Muscat, the negotiations were conducted at a higher level, with a primary focus on regional security management. Steve Witkoff participated as a representative of the U.S. National Security Council, emphasizing concerns related to proxy group activities, the Red Sea, and regional interests of Washington. On the Iranian side, Seyed Abbas Araghchi assumed a role beyond that of a conventional Foreign Ministry official, reflecting the strategic weight assigned to the negotiations.
b) Rome Talks: Diplomatic and Technical Figures
The Rome discussions centered on technical and sanctions-related matters. Araghchi, engaged in talks as a seasoned figure in nuclear and sanctions negotiations, while Witkoff, tasked with tracking political developments in the region. Both sides approached the talks from a diplomatic and policymaking perspective. Although conducted in an unofficial format, the Rome round aimed to develop a preliminary framework for mutual understanding.
3. Key Agendas Discussed in Each Round
a) Muscat: Security, Deterrence, and Tension De-escalation
The Muscat talks focused primarily on de-escalation of military operations by Iran-aligned groups, crisis management in Iraq and Syria, and the safeguarding of maritime navigation in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. Additionally, the U.S. side requested greater transparency from Iran regarding its defense-related relations with Russia and China.
b) Rome: Nuclear Program and Sanctions
The central focus of the Rome round was the gradual return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the lifting of sanctions, and the exchange of detainees. Both sides sought potential mechanisms to ensure continuity of the JCPOA revival pathway, even in the face of changing political landscapes, including the possibility of shifts in the U.S. administration.
4. Oman's Role in Facilitating the Dialogue
a) In Muscat: A Proactive and Multi-layered Role
During the second round in Muscat, Oman adopted a more proactive role incorporating coordination with international stakeholders and direct monitoring of the progress of the talks. Oman endeavored to restore the trust of both parties and create a secure environment for dialogue. In some instances, it even proposed frameworks for reciprocal actions.
b) Rome: Mediation in the Shadows
Although the negotiations took place in Rome, coordination, planning, and even message transmission were handled by Oman. Oman played the role of a "hidden mediator," utilizing European soil as a facilitating tool for communication between the two parties.
5. Regional and International Repercussions of the Talks
a) Muscat: De-escalation of Military Tensions and Cessation of Sporadic Conflicts
Following the Muscat negotiations, there were indications of a reduction in proxy attacks and a de-escalation of the military atmosphere in the region. These talks primarily served a "crisis management" function, rather than achieving a comprehensive agreement.
b) Rome: Limited Optimism in Economic Markets
The Rome negotiations fueled speculation about the potential for revival of the JCPOA. This led to positive effects on oil prices, currency markets, and regional economic interactions. However, due to the lack of concrete outcomes, the impact remained temporary.
Key Features of the Third Round of Negotiations between Araqchi and Witkoff in Oman and Its Differences from the Previous Rounds
The third round of negotiations between Araqchi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, and Witkoff, Deputy to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs in Oman held in April 2025, marked a significant step toward facilitating the path to a nuclear agreement. This round differed in several aspects from the two previous rounds, as outlined below:
A. Substance of the Negotiations:
In the third round, the parties engaged in more intricate and detailed discussions, particularly concerning guarantees and practical mechanisms for the United States' return to the JCPOA, as well as strategies for de-escalation of tensions in the region. This marked a shift from the earlier rounds, which primarily focused on general principles and conceptual frameworks.
B. Format of the Negotiations:
Whereas previous rounds were largely informal and took the form of expert-level and intergovernmental exchanges, the third round featured participation by higher-ranking officials and was characterized by greater precision and depth. Notably, this phase yielded more tangible progress, especially in the technical and operational dimensions.
C. Involved Officials and Institutions:
While the earlier negotiation rounds primarily took place between Iran and the P5+1, the third round featured a more prominent negotiation between Iran and the European Union. The EU’s role in mediating and facilitating the talks became more pronounced in this phase.
D. Readiness for New Agreements:
Compared to the previous rounds, the parties appeared closer to reaching concrete agreements in this phase. A key distinction was the attainment of more tangible outcomes regarding the legal and operational pathways toward a new accord. In numerous instances, the parties demonstrated greater convergence in their outlooks.
E. Conditions and Guarantees:
One of the most critical topics addressed during this round of negotiations was the examination of enforceable guarantees to ensure the implementation of agreements. Iran emphasized the necessity of firm and enforceable assurances regarding the lifting of sanctions, while the opposing parties focused on mechanisms to reinforce and oversee Iran’s compliance with its nuclear obligations.
Conclusion
Although the first and second rounds of talks between Seyyed Abbas Araghchi and Steven Vitkoff—hosted by Oman—were conducted under a unified mediation framework, they reflected fundamental differences in nature, content, and outcomes. It is worth noting that the Muscat talks were primarily shaped by the need to manage security and military crises, whereas The Rome talks reflected a renewed hope for returning to the path of nuclear diplomacy and reviving the JCPOA. However, the third round of negotiations in Muscat demonstrated efforts by both parties to reach a broader and more sustainable agreement—one that paid closer attention to executive details and mechanisms for international guarantees.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Oman played an unparalleled role by demonstrating flexibility in its mode of hosting—at times covert, at times overt—thus maintaining its position as a trusted mediator. This experience serves as an example of smart diplomacy exercised by small powers when dealing with complex international conflicts.
Your Comment