American observers attempting to read the direction of US policy toward Iran on Tuesday were confronted with the now-familiar spectacle of contradictory signals from the White House. The president expressed belief that Iran wanted a deal. He also highlighted the US military buildup in the Gulf. Both messages arrived simultaneously, leaving allies and adversaries alike uncertain about Washington’s true intentions.
This ambiguity has characterized the US approach to the Iran nuclear file throughout the current diplomatic process. On one hand, US representatives participated seriously in Geneva talks mediated by Oman — meetings that Iran’s foreign minister described as “more constructive” than the first round. On the other, the president has suggested the best outcome would be a change in Iranian leadership, and has not publicly committed to supporting any opposition figure as an alternative.
Iran’s team, led by Araghchi, reached agreement on “general guiding principles” with their American counterparts and indicated that written draft texts would be exchanged ahead of a third meeting in two weeks. Whether the administration in Washington has genuinely committed to following this diplomatic roadmap, or whether the negotiating track is merely one element of a broader pressure strategy, is not entirely clear.
The IAEA dimension adds further complexity. Both sides met separately with the agency’s director general — Iran’s team the day before the talks, the US team the same day — underscoring how central verification is to any potential agreement. Yet previous talks on inspection protocols in Cairo collapsed, suggesting that even when both parties want a deal, the details can derail it.
For Iran, the question of whether the US is a reliable negotiating partner is existential. Tehran signed the 2015 nuclear agreement in good faith and watched it unilaterally abandoned by a US president. The shadow of that experience hangs over every conversation in Geneva.