The Iran-US nuclear negotiators have completed the first round in Muscat
DESPITE US scepticism and prior demands for a broader agenda, the Trump administration succumbed to Iran’s insistence on a strictly bilateral nuclear format, sidelining discussions on ballistic missiles and regional proxies to prevent a pivot toward military action. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted that his country will not stand down on nuclear negotiations as the US preconditions for talks.
The Iranian leadership has expressed willingness to engage in negotiations to ease sanctions, especially following severe economic strain and military strikes in 2025. It will not accept American demands to widen the scope of discussions beyond the nuclear file. Negotiations must occur without threats or undue pressure, framing this as essential for fairness.
The US had demanded three main preconditions: zero uranium enrichment, strict limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and an end to support for regional proxy groups. Iran, by contrast, has made its prerequisites unambiguous. The ballistic missile programme is non-negotiable
Iranian officials consider US conditions, which also include zero uranium enrichment and ending support for regional proxies as improper infringements of its sovereignty. While the US intent is to curb Iran’s missile capabilities, Iranian officials view their missile stockpile, replenished after last year’s conflict with Israel, as essential for defence and assert they are non-negotiable. Iran won’t countenance flexibility on uranium enrichment. The US shooting down of an Iranian drone further complicates diplomatic efforts, but does not undo them.
Iran has shown flexibility on limiting uranium enrichment, but irrevocably refuses to dismantle its program entirely or discuss its military defence capabilities. The US has continued its high-stakes coercion – a “maximum pressure” campaign, including a military buildup in the region. President Trump has signalled bad consequences if a deal is not reached. Iran’s backbone and civilisational stakes will not consent to Trump-style bullying tactics
Iran is trying to leverage a potential “nuclear-only” deal for sanctions relief, while the US is using military pressure to force a comprehensive, long-term deal that includes non-nuclear issues, creating a high risk of continued confrontation. Meanwhile, Iran has continued to strengthen its military, unveiling new missiles and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, while warning that any US attack will lead to a regional war.
Nine Middle Eastern countries called on Trump to engage in solemn talks to pre-empt military action under Trump. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Oman specifically reached out to prevent the cancellation of talks, warning that doing so could increase the risk of a major military confrontation. The regional countries urged the US to “listen to what the Iranians have to say,” and disregard scepticism from US officials. The US has little choice but to defer to regional allies and pursue diplomacy, although it remains sceptical.
For decades, people in the Middle East have appealed to the United States with facts, law, morality, and the language of human rights. They have shown Washington the ruins of bombed cities, bodies of children, slow suffocation of blockades, occupations, and sanctions. The response has been ritualistic concern and strategic deafness. Washington rarely listens to conscience, and rarely, if ever, responds to justice.
Long before human rights entered sanctioned speeches, oil taught Washington where its priorities lay. Control over Middle Eastern energy routes shaped US foreign policy more decisively than anything else. As America claims “energy independence,” global oil prices still determine domestic inflation, electoral outcomes, and market stability. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz can rattle Wall Street faster than any congressional hearing. When Gulf states speak through production cuts, shipping risks, or market uncertainty, Washington listens. Oil does not ask politely.
Pressure from the Middle East matters when it intersects with American domestic power structures, and Israel sits at the centre of that intersection. This is not about Jewish identity or safety; it is about political machinery. Lobbying power, campaign financing, evangelical Christian Zionism, and bipartisan consensus ensure that Israel’s security concerns are treated as American priorities. When Israel feels threatened, Washington moves. When Palestinians are crushed, Washington issues hollow statements.
This asymmetry explains everything. That is why ceasefires are delayed, arms shipments continue amid mass civilian deaths, and international law is treated as optional when it inconveniences an ally.
The Middle East holds a unique power over Washington. The US has troops, bases, aircraft carriers, intelligence assets, and proxy commitments scattered across the region. Any serious regional escalation, whether involving Iran, Hezbollah, the Gulf, or Red Sea shipping, risks pulling the US into a war it cannot easily manage or sell at home. When resistance movements or regional states raise the cost of escalation, Washington is compelled to recalibrate. It utterly fears chaos that it cannot dominate. Iraq and Afghanistan taught the US a brutal lesson: overwhelming force does not guarantee obedience.
Also, when Arab states hesitate on normalisation with Israel, or Turkey plays spoiler within NATO, when Gulf monarchies flirt with China or Russia, Washington’s tone alters with alacrity. This is when the US realises that its “rules-based order” is less rule-based and more coercion-dependent.
The Middle East is not just a conflict zone; it is a marketplace. Arms worth tens of billions of dollars bind US policy to regional regimes. Pressure works when it threatens contracts, bases, or access. The US listens when money talks, not to the suffering of war victims.
Mass unrest deters the US when anger spills into the streets and populations reject humiliation quietly, or when resistance and protest turn uncontrollable. That is why instability and uprisings frighten them more than appeals and moral condemnation.
Gaza exposed this logic in rawness. For years, Gaza screamed and was ignored. Only when the violence threatened regional ignition, shipping routes, and diplomatic fallout did Washington begin to apply limited pressure on its ally. Even then, the goal was not justice. It was containment.
It particularly fears pro-Israel lobbying groups, evangelical voters, campaign financing networks, and congressional caucuses. When regional pressure threatens Israel’s security, Washington reacts fast. When it’s about Arab civilians, refugees, or occupation, it is slow, even static.
The Middle East is one of the largest buyers of US weapons. Pressure works when it threatens billions in arms deals, energy contracts, or dollar-denominated trade. Or, when bases, fleets, shipping, and troops are put at risk. across the region. Any regional pressure that potentially fractures the US-designed order is feared, as are regional uprisings, cross-border militancy, and popular anger spilling into the streets. Washington recalibrates. Not because it’s convinced, but because authority is bleeding.
President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed willingness to pursue “fair and equitable negotiations” with the US, but has emphasised these must be free from threats and “unrealistic demands”. Iran has indicated it will not halt uranium enrichment, calling it a red line and refusing to yield to US pressure to dismantle its nuclear programme.
History has illustrated that the US only responds to cost-based pressure – economic pain, military risk, alliance breakdowns, electoral backlash, and loss of control.
____________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years old. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
