In the midst of the crisis and the competing interests of the great powers, and in light of the widespread consequences of events following the “Al-Aqsa Storm,” Iran emerged not as a country that attempts to create a crisis, but as a regional force that asserts its existence with confidence and authority. Despite sanctions and maximum pressure, Iran is able to establish a paradigm based on national sovereignty and human dignity, claiming scientific and technological advances, particularly in peaceful nuclear energy. Within this framework, the new round of speeches in the Sultan of Oman is not merely a halt of another negotiation. It marks a fundamental turning point.
What is unfolding in Muscat is not merely a continuation of nuclear talks. This is a true test of the seriousness of President Donald Trump, a man who unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 deal, a rare agreement approved by the UN Security Council. Now he is about to return to the negotiation table through the gate of “power.” The problem remains. Is Trump trying to replicate the same deal on his own terms or is he staged a symbolic agreement in the name of regional stability?
As always, Oman hosted these negotiations in the spirit of neutrality and wise mediation. This is based on the belief that sustainable solutions come from dialogue rather than threats. Here is the fundamental difference between the two approaches. One extends warships and drones, while the other reaches out based on mutual respect and commitment to international law.
Iran’s leadership based on domestic legitimacy and international credibility from principled independence does not view negotiation as simply a way to avoid war. Rather, it sees it as an opportunity to confirm legitimate access to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty includes mutual commitments, including ensuring that non-nuclear states have access to peaceful technology.
Details that have been leaked from the consultation suggest that it is to reach a preliminary agreement that opens a way for wider discussion. Iran believes the two-month deadline set by Trump is insufficient to create a complex and comprehensive deal unless it agrees to return to the previous agreement. Therefore, Tehran is seeking a transitional formula that will keep the door open for a permanent solution without compromising its rights.
It is no secret that Trump’s withdrawal is more than a political withdrawal. It marked the beginning of a maximum pressure policy on Iran. It was spurred by the White House with support from the Zionist administration and several local governments. However, it was Iran’s immobilization that Washington was miscalculated. Not only did Iran not retreat, it also proceeded with a peaceful nuclear program, increased enrichment levels and returned to the table with even greater leverage.
Trump believes escalating threats, military deployments and regional manipulation will set Iran back. However, experience shows that the more pressure is applied, the more resilient Iran becomes. This is why Tehran claims clear terms of negotiation. There is no consultation under pressure, and no transactions have been stripped of meaning by external coercion.
The escalating tensions pushed by Trump and his allies are not only futile, but also a threat to the entire region. Military adventures in this context are devastating and no one can escape the flames. The provocative actions of the occupying regime and efforts to inflame the fronts of Gaza, Lebanon and Syria must be seen within this unstable framework.
Iran, on the other hand, presents a mature model of political and diplomatic behavior. It focuses on the transparency of international testing, involvement in various initiatives, and the peaceful nature of the nuclear program. These are clear signals to the global community that Iran is not a barrier to dialogue, but a barrier to dignity and mutual interest, but a promoter of it.
Economically, Iran is well aware that peaceful nuclear energy is the backbone of sustainable development. In particular, pressure is increasing on traditional energy sources. So its claims for nuclear technology, while not luxury or wasteful, is the need for a nation for job creation, healthcare and industrial development, and alignment with global technological revolutions.
Nevertheless, Iran’s vision extends beyond national territory and extends to regional and international levels. Iran believes that regional stability cannot be achieved through arms races and imposed wills, but through respect for sovereignty and non-interference. Therefore, nuclear dealing is seen as a step towards building a local collective security system based on cooperation rather than conflict.
From this perspective, the Muscat conversation is not merely a technical file, but a mirror that reflects a bigger battle, between those seeking to impose a new world order rooted in domination and arrogance, and those seeking to regain balance based on international law and the rights of the state. Here we uncover the contrast between Trump’s trading approach and Iran’s sovereignty and dignity stance.
Iran’s position is not based on a complete rejection, but on the preparation of a fair, comprehensive and enforceable agreement. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has completely stuck to its previous contract. It was the United States that violated it. The new agreement therefore should include actual guarantees rather than empty promises that will be easily discarded in the political changes of the White House.
The current landscape makes it clear that war is not a strategic option for everyone. It simply shatters international unification, creates a vacuum of security, and spreads instability. Negotiations provide a window of hope, if difficult, but this hope must rest on mutual commitments, not on the nation’s fear tor.
The world watches Muscat with concern. Will Trump accept responsibility for an unfair withdrawal from previous deals, or will he push for a new agreement, which will only secure economic benefits, such as market prices, at the cost of international principles? The answer is still unknown. But what is certain is that, as Iran has repeatedly demonstrated, no bargain over its sovereignty will waive its legitimate rights.
Therefore, the negotiations for Muscat not only reveal Iran’s advantage, but also serve as a true test of Trump himself. Does he have the political courage to embrace the new reality? Or will he stick to his stubbornness and will until his regret is no longer of any use?