LONDON – Amid overlapping crises and competing interests of major powers—and in light of the far-reaching consequences of events following the “Al-Aqsa Storm”—Iran has emerged not as a country seeking to create crises but as a regional power that asserts its presence with confidence and authority.

Despite sanctions and maximum pressure, Iran has managed to establish a paradigm based on national sovereignty and human dignity while insisting on scientific and technological advancement—especially in peaceful nuclear energy. Within this framework, the new round of talks in the Sultanate of Oman is not just another negotiation stop; it marks a fundamental turning point.

What is unfolding in Muscat is not merely a continuation of nuclear talks; it is a real test of the seriousness of U.S. President Donald Trump—a man who unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 deal, a rare agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council. Now, he is attempting to return to the negotiating table through the gate of “power.” The question remains: Is Trump trying to reproduce the same deal on his own terms, or is he staging a symbolic agreement in the name of regional stability?

As always, Oman hosted these negotiations with a spirit of neutrality and wise mediation, grounded in the belief that sustainable solutions come through dialogue, not threats. Here lies the fundamental difference between the two approaches: one flexes warships and drones, and the other extends a hand based on mutual respect and commitment to international law.

Iranian leadership, grounded in domestic legitimacy and international credibility from principled independence, does not view negotiations merely as a way to avoid war. Rather, it sees them as an opportunity to affirm its rightful access to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty includes mutual commitments, such as enabling non-nuclear states to access peaceful technology—not punishing them for pursuing it.

Leaked details from the talks suggest the goal is to reach a preliminary agreement that paves the way for broader discussions. Iran believes that the two-month deadline set by Trump is insufficient to craft a complex, comprehensive deal—unless he agrees to return to the previous accord. Thus, Tehran seeks a transitional formula that keeps the doors open for a lasting solution without compromising its rights.

It is no secret that Trump’s withdrawal was more than a political retreat; it marked the beginning of a maximum pressure policy against Iran—pushed by the White House with support from the Zionist regime and some regional governments. But what Washington miscalculated was Iran’s steadfastness. Not only did Iran not retreat, but it advanced its peaceful nuclear program, increased enrichment levels, and returned to the table with even greater leverage.

Trump believes that escalating threats, military deployments, and regional maneuvers will force Iran to back down. But experience shows that the more pressure is applied, the more resilient Iran becomes. This is why Tehran insists on clear negotiation conditions: no talks under pressure and no deal stripped of meaning by external coercion.

The escalating tensions driven by Trump and his allies are not only futile but a threat to the entire region. Any military adventure in this context would be catastrophic, and no one would be spared its flames. The provocative actions of the occupying regime and efforts to inflame fronts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria must be seen within this volatile framework—one that only serves narrow, short-sighted agendas.

On the other hand, Iran presents a mature model of political and diplomatic behavior: transparency with international inspections, engagement with various initiatives, and emphasis on the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. These are clear signals to the global community that Iran is not a barrier to dialogue, but a promoter of it—albeit within the bounds of dignity and mutual interest.

On the economic front, Iran is well aware that peaceful nuclear energy is the backbone of sustainable development—especially under increasing pressure on traditional energy sources. Therefore, its insistence on nuclear technology is neither a luxury nor a futile challenge, but a national necessity for job creation, medical and industrial development, and alignment with the global technological revolution.

Nevertheless, Iran’s vision goes beyond its domestic sphere, extending to regional and international levels. Iran believes regional stability cannot be achieved through arms races or imposed wills but through respect for sovereignty and non-interference. Accordingly, the nuclear deal is viewed as a step toward building a regional collective security system based on cooperation, not confrontation.

From this perspective, the Muscat talks are not just a technical file but a mirror reflecting a larger battle—between those who seek to impose a new world order rooted in domination and arrogance and those who aim to restore balance based on international law and the rights of nations. Here, the contrast between Trump’s transactional approach and Iran’s sovereignty- and dignity-based stance becomes starkly evident.

Iran’s position is not based on total rejection but on readiness for a fair, comprehensive, and enforceable agreement. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran fully adhered to the previous deal—it was the U.S. that violated it. Therefore, any new agreement must include real guarantees, not empty promises easily discarded with a change in White House politics.

The current landscape makes it clear that war is not a strategic option for anyone; it would only shatter international unity, create security vacuums, and spread instability. While negotiations—even if difficult—offer a window of hope, this hope must rest on mutual commitments, not the extortion of nations.

The world watches Muscat anxiously: Will Trump accept responsibility for his unjustified withdrawal from the previous deal, or will he push for a new agreement that merely secures his economic interests—like market prices—at the expense of international principles? The answer is still unclear. But what is certain is that Iran—as it has repeatedly demonstrated—will neither bargain over its sovereignty nor abandon its legitimate rights.

Thus, the Muscat negotiations not only reveal Iran’s superiority but serve as a true test for Trump himself. Does he have the political courage to accept new realities? Or will he persist in his obstinacy and willfulness until regret is no longer of any use?