After three rounds of indirect US-Iran talks in Oman and Italy – with more planned – a clear pattern has emerged: both sides are probing what is possible without locking themselves into rigid conditions. This cautious dance reflects Iran’s longstanding preference for negotiations that leave room for maneuver, and an American administration – light on depth but heavy on the need for perceived victories – that is desperate to showcase its ability to “close the deal,” a legacy notion associated with President Donald Trump. Yet so far, tangible progress remains elusive.

What has been publicly acknowledged is that these meetings have been “positive and productive,” a diplomatic euphemism suggesting that real breakthroughs remain distant. The latest meeting reportedly tackled technical issues, with further sessions expected to focus on narrowing the still considerable gaps. The objective remains clear: to broker a deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons – an ambition Tehran denies harboring – in exchange for significant sanctions relief.

But even if talks appear cordial on the surface, deep divisions persist over what a “good” deal would entail – not just for Washington and Tehran, but for regional players like Israel, the Gulf states, and the broader international community. The challenge lies in reconciling these conflicting visions.

At one end of the spectrum, an agreement that caps Iran’s uranium enrichment at 4 percent purity – enough for civilian use but far from weapons-grade – would likely be palatable to Tehran. Under such a deal, Iran could retain its advanced centrifuge technology and agree to a rigorous inspections regime in exchange for broad sanctions relief. From Iran’s........

© Blitz