Killing time or genuine approach: What does Iran seek from 'indirect talks' with the US?

A sudden change in Iran's approach to talks with the US, apparently scheduled for this Saturday in Oman, raised questions over whether Tehran is preparing for a serious agreement or simply trying to gain time amid rising regional and domestic pressures.

Until recently, senior Iranian officials were publicly rejecting the idea of negotiations, citing the Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei's stance. But US President Donald Trump's surprise announcement on Monday, 7 April, about talks in Oman caught Tehran off guard, prompting a quick change in public rhetoric.

Back in February, The New Arab reported that despite publicly opposing negotiations with the US, Iran's Supreme Leader has a history of quietly approving talks behind closed doors. The report explained that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei often speaks out against negotiations to keep support from hardliners and avoid blame if talks fail, as he did in 2018 after the collapse of the nuclear deal.

In 2018, Trump had withdrawn from the 2015 agreement, which had lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Although the deal had the Supreme Leader's approval, once it fell apart, he shifted responsibility to then-President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Trump's recent move of sending a letter to the Leader added to the confusion about Iran’s real position.

Now, with reports of a meeting in Oman this weekend between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as well as other senior officials, key questions are being raised: Who approved these talks? What is Iran trying to achieve? And where could this lead?

Who gave the order to negotiate?

In recent days, several Iranian officials have suggested that a green light for talks was given, though in the beginning they avoided naming who issued the order.

Just before Trump's announcement, General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of Iran's armed forces, made a key statement to local press, "In this response, of course, the Supreme Leader cleared the orders and the response was delivered by the foreign minister…"

He then, in an attempt to distance Khamenei from the negotiations, said, "We will not negotiate directly, but indirect negotiations are fine… and though we don't trust you, we won't close the door."

After Trump's comments about holding direct talks in Oman, Iranian officials quickly changed their public message, now saying Supreme Leader Khamenei had agreed to "indirect talks".

The clearest statement came from President Masoud Pezeshkian, on Wednesday, "The Supreme Leader said we are ready to negotiate, but not directly, because we do not trust [Americans]."

In reality, no high-level negotiations on Iran's nuclear program can happen without Khamenei's approval. However, the decision-making process is influenced by power struggles between political factions close to the leader, as well as top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which holds major economic and political power in Iran.

Moreover, a recently New York Times report claims that Khamenei changed his mind after a high-level meeting including Iran's president, as well as the heads of the judiciary and parliament. Reportedly, several senior officials warned Khamenei of the threat of war with Israel and the US, in addition to major domestic economic challenges, makes the ruling regime extremely vulnerable. 

At the end of the meeting Khamenei had granted permission for talks, first indirect, through an intermediary, and then, if things proceeded well, for direct talks between US and Iranian negotiators, Iranian officials told the US media outlet. 

What is Iran hoping to gain through negotiations?

Iran's willingness to negotiate was clear in its response to Trump's letter, although the contents of the letter remain unknown. To understand the shift, it is useful to look back to 2019, when Trump sent a message through Japan's then-prime minister Shinzo Abe.

At the time, Khamenei refused to accept the letter and told Abe, "I will tell you something, but I will not give him any message because I do not consider Trump worthy of exchanging messages."

Iran's current situation is very different. Its allies in Lebanon and Iraq are under pressure. Syria's Assad regime has collapsed. The Houthis in Yemen face constant US strikes. Iran's missile deterrent against Israel is in doubt, and domestic unrest has increased, especially after the 2022 protests.

These factors have pushed Iran to change its tone. Iranian officials now speak more softly and even before any deal is signed, they are offering public reassurances on the nuclear issue.

One example came from Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, who posted on social media, "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."

This statement refers to the Supreme Leader's religious ruling against nuclear weapons. But such rulings can be changed. Araghchi's message was meant to confirm that the ruling still stands.

Later, Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian also said, "We will provide any necessary guarantee that we are not looking for a nuclear bomb."

He went further, appealing to Trump's business instincts: "I am at the service of the Supreme Leader several times every week. He has no objection to American investors in the country. Investors should come and invest."

This marks a major shift from the Iranian Surpeme Leader's tone in 2019 and reflects the country's urgent need to ease international sanctions, which have paralysed its already struggling economy.

Still, not all powerful figures in Iran agree with negotiations. Some former IRGC commanders, including current parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, see talks as a threat.

Moreover, according to reports, Khamenei has set some conditions and parameters for talks. While he gave greenlight to discuss the nuclear program, he rejected any discussion on disarming Iran's missiles.

Is Iran buying time?

Commentators believe Iran's goal in these talks depends on what the US demands. A real deal could happen, or Iran could simply be trying to delay.

Jalal Sadatian, Iran's former ambassador to the UK and an expert on the country's diplomatic strategy, suggested that the talks in Oman could eventually lead to direct negotiations and a new agreement.

"In diplomacy, the path begins with informal messages and can gradually end at the negotiating table, especially when both sides feel that time is running out," Sadatian said.

He noted that Iranian officials are looking for a way to ease the sanctions that have severely damaged the economy, while also trying to reduce the risk of a military confrontation with the US and Israel.

However, on the other side of Iran’s political spectrum, opponents of talks with the US argue that negotiations should be used as a strategic tool to buy time.

Ali Mahdian, a hardliner cleric, claimed that indirect negotiations would undermine the legitimacy of Israeli and American actions in the region and would "also kill time."

"It would delay everything, and delay is fatal for the United States and Israel in the region," he said.

Iranian analyst Hossein Dehbashi also wrote on X, "The only purpose of the meetings is to buy time in the hope that other severe global issues will stagnate and silence the issue of this tension."