Iran-US Nuclear Talks: Prospects for West Asia Security and Implications for Israel
Dr. Zheer Ahmed
The recent indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States (US) in Muscat, Oman, mark a critical moment in the long, turbulent history of US-Iran relations. For the first time since President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), both nations appear to be engaging with renewed urgency and a sense of realism. These efforts aim to secure a deal that would offer Iran relief from US-imposed economic sanctions in return for curbing its uranium enrichment program and nuclear ambitions. Although the road ahead remains complicated, these talks could significantly impact West Asian security and have far-reaching implications for Israel.
Unlike the circumstances surrounding the 2015 agreement, the current negotiations unfold in a markedly different geopolitical landscape. Iran, facing growing economic pressures and increasing regional challenges, seems more inclined to compromise. The country’s leadership, under the aging Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is focused on preserving the regime and revitalizing the economy. Reform-minded leaders, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have emphasized the urgent need for foreign investment estimated at over USD100 billion to combat inflation and unemployment. Notably, Khamenei has reportedly given Araghchi full negotiating authority, a signal of Tehran’s commitment to the talks.
In Washington, President Trump appears motivated by a desire to score a foreign policy achievement. Although his administration initially demanded that Iran halt its missile program and end support for regional proxies, its current approach has narrowed to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff have demonstrated flexibility, engaging in face-to-face dialogue, albeit labeled ‘indirect’ to preserve political optics on both sides. This subtle shift has created a rare alignment in US and Iranian priorities (exchanging disarmament for sanctions relief). Despite deep mistrust, the negotiations have been conducted with mutual respect and the understanding that talks will continue. The initial session lasted two-and-a-half hours and was mediated by Oman’s foreign minister, including a brief symbolic interaction between Witkoff and Araghchi.
The broader regional climate has also shifted. Arab Gulf states that once opposed the 2015 deal are now more supportive of diplomatic solutions and economic cooperation. Saudi Arabia, especially after its recent thaw in relations with Iran, is demonstrating a more pragmatic approach. This change provides Tehran with regional cover to resume dialogue with Western powers, though tensions with Israel persist.
Israel continues to view any potential Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently opposed both the 2015 agreement and the ongoing negotiations, advocating instead for a ‘Libya-style’ disarmament of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs terms that Tehran flatly rejects. Israel’s military campaigns targeting Iranian proxies across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen have weakened Iran’s influence, but risk igniting broader conflict if diplomacy fails. Netanyahu remains deeply skeptical of Iran’s motives, pointing to its history of inflammatory rhetoric against Israel and its enduring support for hostile groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The Hamas-led attack in October 2023 only heightened Israel’s resolve to neutralize Iran-backed threats. Still, Netanyahu appeared uneasy, when Trump announced the talks, possibly out of concern that Israel’s influence over US foreign policy decisions could wane.
The success or failure of these negotiations will have profound consequences for the West Asia. A breakthrough could ease the risk of armed conflict involving Iran, the US, or Israel. It would also contribute to greater stability in global oil markets and foster economic recovery in the region by reducing uncertainty in the Persian Gulf. However, the process remains fraught with obstacles. Hardline factions in both Iran and the US remain deeply skeptical. Iranian leaders fear that any sign of weakness could spark internal backlash, while US politicians both Republican hawks and some Democrats might reject any deal perceived as too conciliatory, especially if it excludes Iran’s missile program and regional interventions.
The possibility of an interim agreement seems plausible. Many analysts suggest that a temporary arrangement such as freezing uranium enrichment in exchange for partial sanctions relief could build trust and pave the way for a broader accord. This step-by-step method resembles the phased approach of the 2015 JCPOA, but with greater urgency given that the deal’s snapback sanctions clause expires in October. European parties are thus under pressure to either renew the mechanism or create an alternative framework.
Iran, for its part, is likely to insist on institutional guarantees that any new agreement can withstand political transitions in the US. The country remains wary after the 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA, despite Iran’s compliance. This time, Tehran wants legal and political assurances that a new deal will endure, regardless of future US administrations.
The Muscat negotiations offer a cautious but tangible chance to reset US-Iran relations. For the broader West Asia, they may usher in a period of reduced conflict and increased diplomacy. Although Israel remains deeply suspicious as regional attitudes toward engagement have softened and opening space for progress. If the nuclear issue can be isolated from broader regional disputes, such as the conflict in Gaza and instability in Lebanon and Syria, the US and Iran may be able to establish a framework that promotes long-term security.
Saudi Arabia, once critical of the Iran nuclear deal and supportive of President Trump’s withdrawal, now takes a more hopeful stance. As new talks, mediated by Oman, unfold under a second Trump administration, the kingdom’s Foreign Ministry expresses optimism that the negotiations will promote peace across the region and beyond. Success would not only limit Iran’s nuclear development but also enable its economic revival and enhance regional stability. Failure, on the other hand, would likely revive maximum pressure tactics, accelerate uranium enrichment, and intensify regional confrontations.
Dr. Zheer Ahmed, Assistant Professor, Center of Excellence for Geopolitics and International Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru.
