After what both sides described as a “positive” first round of negotiations in Muscat, Oman, Iran and the United States initially appeared set to continue talks on Iran’s nuclear program in Rome. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announced that Italy had received a request from “the interested parties and also Oman” to host the dialogue, and the Netherlands’ foreign minister similarly indicated that Rome was confirmed as the venue. However, on Monday night, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei clarified that the second round of talks would remain in Muscat at Oman’s request, scheduled for Saturday, April 19 (30 Farvardin). Baghaei cited “issues related to support and coordination” as the reason for keeping negotiations in Oman rather than moving them to Italy. Italian officials expressed readiness to host if asked in the future.
It has since been confirmed that the second round of talks will, indeed, be held in Rome, Italy.
Regarding whether the talks are direct or indirect, confusion has arisen. Iranian officials have insisted they remain indirect through Omani mediation, but some reports indicate a 45-minute face-to-face discussion took place between the Iranian and American delegations during the Muscat visit on April 12. Iran’s chief negotiator and foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, acknowledged only a “brief greeting,” fueling speculation that there may have been more direct engagement than Tehran admits publicly.
Next, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is set to visit Moscow to discuss “various issues, including the latest developments in Muscat,” and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi plans to travel to Tehran for talks with Araghchi and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. These high-level contacts reflect the intense diplomatic focus on ensuring compliance, verification, and potential relief from sanctions.
In his first public remarks about the renewed talks, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cautioned officials “not to tie the country’s affairs to negotiations with America,” referencing disappointments following the 2015 JCPOA. He urged avoidance of “extreme optimism or pessimism,” adding that “the first steps have been good” but that Iran remains wary, as “the red lines for us—and for the other side—are entirely clear.”
Meanwhile, Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs, explicitly linked Iran’s military capabilities to any future agreement, stating in a Fox News interview on April 14 that “verifying Iran’s enrichment and armament capabilities” would be crucial. He insisted Iran “does not need enrichment beyond 3.67%” and that higher enrichments—sometimes surpassing 60%—raise doubts about the program’s civilian nature. Witkoff also stressed that verifying Iran’s weapons capabilities “includes missiles, the type of missiles that they have stockpiled there, and it includes the trigger for a bomb.”
Shortly thereafter, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reaffirmed that its military capabilities are non-negotiable, calling them a “red line”. IRGC spokesperson Ali Mohammad Naeini declared: “National security, defense power, and military capabilities are among the Islamic Republic’s red lines under any circumstances. We do not negotiate on such matters.” He characterized U.S. demands to discuss Iran’s missile program as a certain deal-breaker.
Despite these disagreements, both Iranian and American officials characterized the first round in Muscat as “constructive” and “calm,” crediting Oman’s mediation. Baghaei stressed that negotiations focus strictly on Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief—no other topics will be entertained. Araghchi said the Muscat session narrowed some gaps and that Tehran “stands ready to continue serious talks” if Washington is similarly committed. President Donald Trump offered a measured response, saying: “I think the talks are going well… Things aren’t bad. I think things are moving fairly well.” Yet he maintains that “all options remain on the table,” a reminder of possible escalation if diplomacy fails.
In Tehran’s parliament (Majles), lawmakers remain divided. Some warn that the United States could again renege on any deal, while others note the severe economic toll of sanctions and see negotiation as necessary. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf called for “neutralizing sanctions through internal strength” rather than relying on outside powers. Conservative MP Mehdi Kouchakzadeh criticized the talks, but MP Hassan Qashqavi, Head of the Parliament’s Nuclear Committee, defended them, emphasizing that “the Leader’s decisions are final” and that the negotiating team is acting in line with those decisions.
Khamenei has consistently warned against crossing “red lines” on missiles, regional alliances, and national sovereignty. Many analysts in Tehran believe that while Iran welcomes sanctions relief, the leadership will remain steadfast on these core principles. So far, no institution has openly opposed the talks, suggesting cautious support for possible breakthroughs.
Iranian newspapers mirror the nation’s cautious optimism. Reformist-leaning publications speak of a “rare opportunity to redefine interaction” with the United States, while conservative outlets argue “an optimistic path to agreement with Trump remains unlikely” and urge stronger domestic economic measures. Nonetheless, recent developments have lifted the Iranian rial against the dollar, signaling that markets are tracking any signs of de-escalation.
Whether these talks can successfully navigate the new U.S. emphasis on ballistic missiles and armament verification is an open question. With Oman mediating and Khamenei calling the initial steps “good,” there is a narrow window for progress. Yet memories of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA remain vivid in Tehran, fueling skepticism. As Khamenei himself noted, “We are not very pessimistic or very optimistic,” but all parties know precisely where “the red lines” lie. The upcoming session in Muscat will test whether these positive signals can yield a comprehensive agreement—or revert to an entrenched stalemate.