MADRID – The fourth round nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran, held in Muscat on Sunday, May 11, concluded with a surprisingly constructive memo.
According to Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the discussion was “difficult but useful” and allowed both sides to better understand each other’s positions and explore practical pathways to resolve long-standing conflicts.
But this modest diplomatic progress is hidden by a media-led pressure campaign born from Washington. A series of statements from leading American negotiators representing President Donald Trump, particularly Steve Witkoff, were threatened to derail the vulnerable momentum. In an interview with conservative outlet Breitbart News, Witkoff repeatedly made US demands and rejected the possibility of compromise. The timing and tone of his statements suggest a deliberate effort to use the media as a tool of political coercion rather than pursuing true diplomacy.
The familiar deadlock
At the heart of discord is the issue of uranium enrichment. The US argued that Iran must dismantle its enriched infrastructure to “prevent” the development of nuclear weapons. Witkov went further and called for Iran to not only stop enrichment, but also to abolish its centrifuges, export nuclear fuel, and convert the entire nuclear program into a model similar to the Bucher power plant, which lacks enrichment capabilities.
Tehran sees the terms as unrealistic and deeply insulting. Iran argues that the nuclear program is peaceful and that rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) include the ability to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The Islamic Republic has consistently pointed out that several other countries operate enrichment facilities without being accused of militarization.
The claim to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is recognized in Terreyran as a direct challenge to its sovereignty, rather than just a security concern. Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that an agreement calling for a waiver of domestic enrichment is unacceptable and equals a state surrender.
JCPOA’s legacy
This debate is further complicated by the ghosts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 Landmark 2015 nuclear deal that the United States unilaterally retreated under President Trump in 2018. The JCPOA was a carefully negotiated compromise offering relief to Iran’s sanctions in exchange for verifiable restrictions on its nuclear activities. By abandoning the deal, Washington not only undermined years of multilateral diplomacy, but also eroded confidence in America’s future commitments.
In his interview, Witkov showed that the new agreement must avoid the so-called “sunset clause” of the JCPOA. However, his criticism conveniently omits that the US even withdraws from the deal before these provisions came into effect. For Iranian policymakers, this selective memory reflects a broader pattern of American reliability.
Media Campaign as a Pressure Tactic
It is not only the content of US demands, but also the means by which they can be communicated. The choice of Breitbart News as a platform for outlines Hardline’s position was no coincidence. It affects the broader American strategy of using the media appearance to apply external pressure on Tehran.
Rather than having consultations on the careful channels that diplomats usually prefer, certain Washington factions appear to be negotiating in parallel through the media. This media blitz complicates the work of negotiators on earth and undermines the trust between the parties. It also shows Tehran that future agreements could once again be at the mercy of the US election cycle and media narrative.
From an Iranian perspective, this strategy is unstable and dishonest. Iranian negotiators have long appealed to the “moving goal post” and media leaks designed to undermine Tehran’s position ahead of a critical meeting. A recent statement by Witkoff and their amplification in conservative US media could be seen in this regard.
Iran’s diplomatic track record
Despite decades of sanctions and hostility, Iran has consistently shown an willingness to engage in dialogue. From participating in the original JCPOA consultations to working with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Tehran has shown more flexibility than is often recognized in the western capital.
However, Tehran’s commitment to diplomacy is not without its limits. Iran’s leadership faces domestic pressure to avoid becoming weak or subordinate to foreign forces. The longstanding economic hardships imposed by unilateral sanctions only reinforced the public’s feelings of perceived perceptions of Western hypocrisy. In this regard, the biggest demand from Washington is counterproductive and the risk of strengthening the strengthened and strengthened elements within Iran.
Sunday sessions in Muscat were widely seen as a pivotal moment. While Iranians were ready to discuss technical details and possible confidence-building measures, the US delegation appeared to be constrained by a political message returning home. The contrast of the approach conveys. Iran is slowly engaged in a systematic diplomatic process. The United States appears to be more interested in rhetorical victory staging. As a result, there is a negotiation table where one speaks the language of diplomacy and the other speaks the language of domestic attitude.
The outlook for a sustainable agreement remains uncertain. Much depends on whether the US is ready to engage Iran in an equal position and recognize its rights under international law. The blanket’s demand for dismantling and unilateral guarantees is unlikely to succeed. More promising approaches include mutual steps, gradual relief from sanctions, and mechanisms to ensure compliance on both sides.
International actors such as the European Union, Russia and China may play a role in easing cooperation from domestic political pressures in Washington and asserting them. Without such protection, negotiations are destined to be periodic, vulnerable to the whims of American politics and detached from the diplomatic realities on earth.
Ultimately, the success or failure of these consultations depends not only on technical solutions but also on political will. Iran has shown that it is willing to negotiate within a defined framework of mutual respect. Whether the US is willing to do the same thing remains an open question.
If the US continues to rely on media pressure and maximum demands, a disruption in negotiations is a realistic and imminent possibility. If that happens, responsibility rests not only on diplomatic failure, but on more broadly dislike treating diplomacy as a serious and consistent effort.