Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks as Trump Warns of Military Action and Sanctions
Alex Blackburn | 8 April 2025
Summary
Iran rejects direct negotiations with the US over its nuclear program, citing trust issues, while leaving room for indirect talks via intermediaries like Oman in response to Trump's letter urging a new deal.
Trump’s continued economic sanctions and threats of military action increase regional instability, as Iran's nuclear advancements and defiance further heighten tensions between the two nations.
Diplomatic efforts may hinge on indirect negotiations, with a potential breakthrough if both sides agree to phased de-escalation, while the risk of military conflict looms, especially with Iran's growing nuclear capabilities.
The ongoing standoff between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme has intensified in recent weeks. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently ruled out direct negotiations with the US on its nuclear programme, citing a lack of trust due to past breaches of agreements. His statement came in response to a letter from US President Donald Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, sent on March 12th, which urged Tehran to reach a new nuclear deal. While Iran responded to Trump’s letter via Oman, it left the door open for indirect negotiations.
The Trump administration has continued its "maximum pressure" campaign, which includes heavy economic sanctions, particularly targeting Iran’s oil sector. Trump has issued a stern warning, stating, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing, and it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” He also mentioned the possibility of reintroducing secondary tariffs, similar to those imposed during his first term from 2017 to 2021, when he withdrew the US from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Iran has so far rebuffed Trump’s threats, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterating that Tehran will not negotiate as long as sanctions remain in place. Meanwhile, Supreme Leader Khamenei has oscillated between openness to dialogue and outright rejection of negotiations with Washington, citing America’s withdrawal from the previous agreement as evidence of its untrustworthiness.
The escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran carry significant geopolitical and economic consequences. Trump’s threats of military action raise the risk of a direct confrontation in the Middle East, which could destabilise the region further. If diplomatic efforts fail, a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could lead to retaliatory attacks on US interests and allies, including Israel and Gulf states.
Economically, the continuation of US sanctions has further crippled Iran’s economy, affecting its oil exports and increasing domestic hardships. However, Iran has managed to circumvent these sanctions partially through alternative trade routes and unofficial channels, particularly with China and Russia. The continued economic strain, coupled with political unrest, could impact Iran’s internal stability.
Additionally, the diplomatic role of regional intermediaries such as Oman and the UAE has gained prominence. Oman’s involvement in delivering Iran’s response to Trump’s letter signals its continued role as a mediator in US-Iran relations. The UAE’s facilitation of the letter to Khamenei also indicates its vested interest in maintaining regional stability. Additionally, European powers, including France, Germany and the UK, have expressed concerns about Iran’s enrichment levels, urging both parties to return to negotiations. Russia and China, both of whom have closer ties to Tehran, have advocated for a more balanced approach, warning against escalation.
The next few months will be critical in determining whether diplomatic efforts can prevent further escalation. With Trump setting a two-month deadline for a deal, Iran will need to decide whether to engage in indirect negotiations through Oman or continue resisting US pressure. If Iran remains steadfast in its refusal to negotiate under sanctions, Washington may be forced to choose between military action and alternative economic measures. A potential diplomatic breakthrough could come if both sides agree to a phased de-escalation, where Iran reduces uranium enrichment in exchange for targeted sanctions relief. However, given Iran’s distrust of the US following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, any new agreement would require stronger guarantees of enforcement.
On the military front, the risk of confrontation remains high. Iran has warned that any attack on its nuclear facilities will be met with severe retaliation, which could involve strikes on US bases, Gulf allies, or even closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz - a move that could disrupt global oil supplies.
As the situation unfolds, international actors will play a key role in shaping outcomes. The European Union could attempt to revive diplomatic talks, while Russia and China may provide Iran with diplomatic and economic backing. The role of Gulf states in mediating between Washington and Tehran will also be crucial.
United States Department of State/Wikimedia
Forecast
Short-term (Now - 3 months)
It is likely that tensions between the US and Iran will remain high as both sides navigate a delicate balance between diplomacy and confrontation.
Iran has made it clear that it will not engage in direct negotiations while sanctions remain in place, yet its willingness to communicate indirectly through Oman suggests a strategic approach to keep diplomatic channels open without appearing to concede to US pressure.
However, Trump’s two-month deadline for a deal adds urgency to the situation, and if Iran does not respond with concessions, it is likely that Washington could escalate its pressure campaign.
The most immediate risk, an increase in economic coercion is likely, including secondary tariffs, which would further damage Iran’s already struggling economy.
Long-term (>1 year)
It is likely that if indirect negotiations gain traction in the near future, a phased agreement where Iran agrees to slow its uranium enrichment in exchange for targeted sanctions relief could be adopted to help cool tensions.
However, a more likely scenario involves Iran’s deep mistrust of US commitments, reinforced by Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, making any long-term agreement fragile at best. Even if a new deal is reached, its sustainability will depend on stronger enforcement mechanisms and guarantees that the US will not unilaterally abandon the agreement again.
On the other hand, if diplomacy fails, Iran has a realistic possibility of expanding its nuclear capabilities under economic pressure, effectively creating a strategic stalemate where Tehran builds its nuclear potential while avoiding direct war. This would leave the region in a prolonged state of instability, with Israel and the US constantly weighing the possibility of preemptive strikes.
