As of April 2025, diplomatic negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States over Iran’s nuclear capacity have regained momentum. These talks matter because they follow a long period of uncertainty that began in 2018, when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and Iran gradually moved away from its obligations under that deal. After a change of administration in the US with Trump in January 2025, indirect negotiations started in April 2025 under Omani mediation. The aim is to find a new framework that will curb Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions on Tehran. This paper explores the statements made so far in the Iran-US nuclear talks, outlining the main themes each side has stressed, the diplomatic language employed, and their expectations of one another.
Starting in April 2025, the diplomatic contacts have taken the form of indirect talks mediated by Oman. The first round was held in Muscat on 12 April 2025, where Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US President Donald Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steven Witkoff exchanged messages through Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi. In an interview with state television, Araghchi said the meeting took place in a productive and positive atmosphere and stressed that both sides wanted a swift outcome (Reuters). The White House likewise issued a statement after the same meeting, calling the Muscat dialogue very positive (Reuters).
After the groundwork set in the first meeting, the parties held a second round of indirect talks in Rome a week later, followed by a third round in Muscat on 26 April. In the meantime, the negotiations proceeded through technical working-level sessions and indirect contacts between the chief negotiators. News reports dated 26 April 2025 stated that, after preparatory work by expert teams, Araghchi and Witkoff were indirectly working in Oman on a draft framework agreement (Reuters). The fact that the talks have taken place at such short intervals and in stages reflects the urgency felt on both sides: Iran’s nuclear program is advancing rapidly, and the US feels pressure to achieve quick results through diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear-weapon capability. One striking feature of the talks is the absence of direct contact. The Iranian and US delegations stayed in separate rooms, communicating via Omani officials. Iran has emphasized that it will not enter direct negotiations under a climate of maximum pressure and military threats from the Trump administration (Tasnim News). Iran’s longstanding suspicion of the US since the Islamic Revolution has also contributed to this stance. Even so, the fact that communication channels remained open through three rounds and became continuous indicates at least a shared willingness to conduct diplomacy.
Statements from the Iranian Side
Throughout the April 2025 negotiations, Iran has adopted a discourse that first emphasizes sovereignty rights and peaceful intent. Ahead of the third round, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei stated on social media that Iran was determined to safeguard its legitimate and lawful right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Tasnim News). By framing its program within the context of national sovereignty and development rights, Tehran seeks to send a message of legitimacy to the international community. A second theme is that US sanctions are illegitimate and inhumane. Spokesman Baghaei also added that Iran’s core goal in the new round is the concrete and rapid lifting of unlawful and inhuman sanctions (Tasnim News). Pointing to the negative effects of years-long sanctions on the population, Tehran characterizes them as an illegal and unjust coercive tool.
Another element in Iranian statements is a tone of skepticism. Shaken by the US withdrawal from the JCPOA during Trump’s first term, Iran is approaching the new talks cautiously (Stimson.org). Iran has demanded guarantees that the US will remain committed to any new agreement. Iranian sources say that even if progress is made, mechanisms to prevent a future US withdrawal are vital (Iran International). At the same time, Iran’s rhetoric is not limited to restrained demands. Tehran also issues tough messages when necessary, especially on security matters. In parallel with the talks, Iran has warned neighbouring states hosting US bases -especially Gulf states- that they will face severe consequences if they participate in any military strike on Iran (Reuters). Such statements aim to show Tehran’s readiness for the use of force if negotiations fail. In summary, Iran’s official rhetoric balances a constructive, rights-based tone, emphasizing peaceful intent, dialogue and willingness for agreement with insistence that Islamic Republic will not compromise on lifting sanctions, recognition of sovereignty rights, or security guarantees. Messages of optimism and compromise are routinely offset by reminders of red lines, foremost among them the right to enrich uranium and refusal to ship its stockpile abroad (Mehr News Agency). These hard positions show Tehran’s effort to preserve bargaining power and an image of resistance.
Statements from the US Side
During the April 2025 talks, US rhetoric likewise combines a search for diplomatic compromise with firmness and threat. Re-elected in January 2025, President Donald Trump declared early in his second term that he intended to reach an agreement with Iran. Although this and the ensuing talks demonstrate a high-level willingness to give diplomacy a chance, the accompanying warning is noteworthy: Trump reiterated that military force remains on the table if diplomacy fails (Reuters). Therefore, the US message clearly follows a carrot-and-stick approach and offering an agreement and economic incentives (such as lifting sanctions) while signalling that sanctions and military pressure will continue, when it is deemed to be necessary.
The Trump administration has reactivated the maximum pressure campaign against Iran since the inauguration in 2025 (Reuters). From February 2025 onward, the US has strictly enforced existing unilateral sanctions and added new ones, using economic pressure as its chief card. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during the talks that any deal would require Iran to halt all uranium enrichment and to import fuel for civilian needs from abroad (Military.com). This demand, envisaging a complete restriction of Iran’s program, is extremely limiting from Tehran’s perspective. Another prominent theme in US statements is an emphasis on responsibility for regional and global security. Washington argues that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would trigger a regional arms race and pose an existential threat to allies such as Israel. Accordingly, the US officials frequently state that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon and that they will prevent it by force if necessary. To reassure Israel and Arab partners, the Trump administration has not shied from harsh rhetoric. President Trump has openly raised the option of bombing Iran if no deal is reached (The Guardian). Such statements aim to strengthen Washington’s hand and exert psychological pressure. The US rhetoric also constantly references Iran’s past non-compliance and alleged covert activities. It focuses on IAEA reports that reveal findings of undeclared nuclear material in Iran. In March 2025 the UN Security Council convened over allegations of undeclared activities and Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium (Al Jazeera). Washington insists that Iran must cooperate with full transparency and resolve the agency’s questions as a precondition. This discourse seeks to put diplomatic pressure on Tehran. The UK, France and Germany have said they are ready, together with the US, to invoke the snapback mechanism, that is, re-imposing all sanctions under the 2015 UN resolution before JCPOA expires in October 2025 if Iran fails to comply (Naked Capitalism). All these messages emphasize that Iran’s isolation will deepen if it does not engage seriously. In short, the US negotiating rhetoric has two pillars, while Trump and his team highlight a desire for diplomacy and agreement in constructive terms, they also voice tough demands and implicit or explicit threats. The strategy aims to maintain maximum pressure without derailing the process.
Conclusion
The renewed Iran-US nuclear talks that began in April 2025 reveal a striking dual strategy in the rhetoric of both countries. Tehran and Washington each emphasize their search for compromise in public while forcefully stating that they will not concede on core demands. Iran underscores its right to peaceful nuclear technology and makes lifting sanctions its priority, drawing clear red lines on enrichment rights and defense programs. The US, for its part, states that it is giving diplomacy a chance but expects a comprehensive deal that will terminate Iran’s nuclear program. The Iran-US nuclear negotiations, which began in April 2025, have entered a critical period. It is reported that Iran is preparing to reject the new nuclear deal proposal presented by the US as of June 2025. The reason for this rejection is that the proposal requires Iran to completely stop its uranium enrichment activities and send its existing stockpiles abroad (Reuters). The Iranian Foreign Minister Arakchi stated that he finds these conditions unacceptable and on the contrary Trump administration shows zero tolerance for enrichment activities, therefore it is indicated that the negotiations are entering a deadlock rather than a compromise.
Sources
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202504193026
https://www.stimson.org/2025/progress-in-iran-us-talks-as-seen-from-iran/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-set-reimpose-maximum-pressure-iran-official-says-2025-02-04/
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-open-meeting-irans-leaders-he-tells-time-magazine-2025-04-25/
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/04/trump-back-on-track-to-failed-iran-negotiations-and-likely-war.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-poised-dismiss-us-nuclear-proposal-says-iranian-diplomat-2025-06-02/
Presented by Zahide İlayda Girgin