Iran-US talks in Rome in shadow of Washington’s fluctuations

Afghan Voice Agency (AVAl: The first round of talks began last week in Muscat, the capital of Oman, which both sides described as relatively positive, creating a glimmer of hope for progress in the talks. However, in the interval between the two rounds, sudden changes in the positions of US officials, especially on Iran’s enrichment activities, have created an ambiguous situation regarding the possibility of progress in the talks.

 

“Given the contradictory positions we have heard from various American officials over the past few days, we expect the American side to clarify this issue as a first step and to remove the serious ambiguities that have arisen regarding its intentions and seriousness,” Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said ahead of the Rome meeting.

 

He stressed that progress depends solely on the American side’s realism. “A step forward can only be achieved if the other side, with realism and without being influenced by extremist, warmongering circles, including the Zionist regime, refrains from making unrealistic and unreasonable demands that are also contrary to accepted international rules and customs, and adopts a constructive and reasonable approach,” Baghaei added.

 

The main source of confusion stems from the chief American negotiator, Whittaker himself. Shortly after suggesting in an interview with Fox News that Iran might be allowed to enrich uranium to a certain level under a potential deal, he clearly changed his position in a post on the social network X (formerly Twitter), writing that Iran should eliminate its enrichment entirely. This position was subsequently repeated by a White House spokesman.

 

US Treasury Secretary Scott Besant also emphasized the intensification of the maximum pressure campaign and drew a line under the sand for companies that buy oil from Iran.

 

Domestic disputes, foreign pressure and political sabotage?

 

Analysts point to several potential factors behind Washington’s conflicting messages:

 

Internal disputes within the administration: Reports have already indicated that there are significant differences within the Trump administration over the appropriate strategy towards Iran, likely pitting officials who favor limited engagement against hardliners who want Iran to surrender completely.

 

Influence of hard-line critics and allies: Strong opponents of any deal with Iran, including influential think tanks, pressure groups, and regional allies such as Israel, are actively lobbying against any concessions to Iran and may seek to force Trump to adopt a more confrontational stance, contrary to his repeated claims that he is a “president of peace.”

 

Domestic political maneuvering: Some observers speculate that elements within the U.S. political establishment, including possibly Democrats who are concerned about handing Trump a foreign policy victory, may be secretly working to complicate or undermine the current negotiations.

Reflections of past inefficiencies

 

The current contradictions are reminiscent of the implementation phase of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. During that period, conflicting interpretations and actions between the U.S. State Department and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) often created confusion, hindered the economic benefits expected for Iran, and ultimately damaged America’s reputation as a reliable negotiating partner. The current conflicting signals risk repeating that pattern.

 

Democratic Resistance to the Deal Under Trump

 

Furthermore, prominent figures from the Obama administration who were involved in the JCPOA have recently expressed skepticism about paths forward that would significantly deviate from that agreement. Their recent interpretations often make unrealistic and radical demands, emphasize the perceived difficulty of achieving verifiable limits outside the specific structure of the JCPOA, or implicitly criticize the current administration’s approach. While they ostensibly support diplomacy, the formulation of their arguments often suggests that they are mining any avenue of engagement between Iranian negotiators and Whittaker. Some analyses suggest that a coalition that includes traditional hardliners and possibly elements who would resist any deal under Trump is actively working to portray meaningful engagement with Iran as futile or dangerous.

 

The Way Forward

Iraqi and Whittaker will meet in Rome at a time when the immediate challenge lies in rebuilding a modicum of trust. Iran’s demand for clarity about U.S. objectives is critical. Whether the U.S. delegation can present a unified and credible position that is free from perceived volatility and resilient to domestic and foreign pressures will likely determine whether these talks can move beyond procedural clarifications and into substantive negotiations. Otherwise, there is a risk of losing the temporary opening created in Muscat and possibly complicating the current situation.