Iran and the United States returned to the negotiating table in Muscat on Friday, months after a war had upended diplomatic engagement between the two sides. The talks came after tensions had escalated to the brink of war, raising concerns across the region and even beyond about the risk of a wide-ranging regional conflict. As before, the discussions in Muscat were held between Iran’s foreign minister and the US President Donlad Trump’s representative, with one notable difference; the commander of US Central Command joined the talks without prior announcement. The outcome of the negotiations was an agreement to continue dialogue. Yet while both sides described the talks as positive, Washington moved quickly to ramp up pressure on Iran by imposing new sanctions and penalizing Iran’s trading partners. Iran Daily discussed the details and outcomes of these negotiations with Rahman Ghahremanpour, an international affairs expert. He said the US has retained and continues to pursue a policy of pressure and military threats as an alternative should diplomacy fail, but warned that excessive emphasis on this approach would diminish the chances of diplomatic success.
Rahman Ghahremanpour, Iran Daily
How do you assess the overall trajectory of Friday’s negotiations between Iran and the United States? In your view, what were the agendas and priorities of each side, and can these talks be considered a step forward, or merely an effort to manage tensions?
QAHREMANPOUR: Both Iran and the United States were, first and foremost, seeking to manage the atmosphere in their own favor. Washington came to the table pursuing coercive diplomacy, while Tehran’s focus was on containing the risk of war. At the same time, both sides—particularly Iran—sought to advance their own agendas while managing tensions. Iran was clearly aiming to pin down a specific framework for the negotiations, including defining the subject matter and the timeline of the talks. Based on the information available so far, the two sides have agreed to hold another round of negotiations, which could potentially be used to finalize the negotiating framework. Yet, it should not be overlooked that Trump is seeking a rapid and early agreement.
What objective and message did the unannounced presence of the CENTCOM commander at these talks convey? Can this be seen as a sign of the continuation of Washington’s security-oriented, pressure-driven approach even alongside diplomatic engagement?
The unannounced presence of the CENTCOM commander was clearly intended to lend credibility to the United States’ military threat.
Washington wanted to signal that, alongside diplomacy, it is prepared for war. Another likely reason relates to the multifaceted nature of the negotiations; given that the talks could touch on various issues, the presence of a senior military commander would allow him both to present his views and to provide expert input to the Trump team.
While Iran’s foreign minister has described the talks as “a good start,” Washington immediately pursued a path of intensified pressure, without rolling back its regional military deployments. How do you evaluate this approach, and what impact will it have on confidence-building and the continuation of negotiations? Under these conditions, how do you see the future of the talks, and is there genuine will on the US side to reach an agreement?
I believe the United States is not acting in a contradictory manner. Its approach toward Iran is grounded in what is commonly referred to as coercive diplomacy, or diplomacy backed by force. Within this framework, Washington seeks a diplomatic solution, but will resort to military action if diplomacy fails.
During Trump’s first term, the administration largely pursued a policy of maximum pressure, in which the use of military force did not play a central role. In coercive diplomacy, however, military power and force are integral components of the framework itself. This explains why the United States, even while continuing negotiations, is simultaneously attempting to keep the military option on the table and thereby make its diplomatic message appear more credible.
Naturally, however, if Washington places excessive emphasis on force and coercion, the prospects for successful diplomatic negotiations will decline. This may be one of the reasons financial markets have reacted cautiously to the outcome of the latest talks. Despite participating in negotiations, the United States continues to escalate pressure, impose tariffs on Iran’s trading partners, and sanction Iranian officials and companies. This, in effect, undermines the credibility of diplomacy, disrupts the necessary balance between diplomacy and force, and reduces the likelihood of success.
Given the continuation of US military movements and simultaneous threats in the region, how decisive do you see Iran’s deterrence factor in keeping diplomacy on track?
Iran’s deterrence factor certainly plays an important role. The key issue, however, within deterrence theory, is the extent to which Iran’s message about regionalizing a potential war is perceived as credible by the United States. At times, threats are issued but not taken seriously by the other side, and as a result they lack the desired impact. It appears that, judging by the scale of US military equipment deployed to the region, Washington has taken Iran’s threat of regionalizing a conflict and targeting US bases in the event of war seriously. The United States is therefore seeking to establish three different layers of defense in the region in order to contain Iran’s threat should a military confrontation occur.
