The numerous and sometimes contradictory reports have made it difficult to form a clear and fair picture of the state of talks between the US and Iran. As a result, they have also fueled Israel's most popular national pastime in recent weeks: speculating over whether there will or will not be an American strike on Iran.
Initial information released at the conclusion of the meetings in Oman appeared, at least on the surface, to point to serious intentions. President Trump himself testified to this, adding that Iran was agreeing to issues it had agreed to in the past and that an agreement would have been signed had that been the case then.
However, as the hours passed it became clear that gaps remained. Various Iranian representatives clarified that they would agree only to partial restrictions on the nuclear project — limits on uranium enrichment levels, but not on enrichment itself — and that they would not agree to discuss other issues, particularly the missile program, which Iran claims is intended for self-defense.
The ball therefore remains in the American court. Alongside Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who led the talks, the commander of US Central Command, Adm. Brad Cooper, was added to the team, to the displeasure of the Iranians. This was likely done for two main reasons. First, to constantly present Iran with a tangible threat, embodied by the person who would ultimately carry it out. Second, to involve a professional with deep operational knowledge, whom it would be harder for Iran to mislead or stall.
Iran was represented in the talks, as before, by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. In an interview with Al Jazeera yesterday, he said Iran was not interested in war, but was also not afraid of it. He added that Iran had no intention of attacking neighboring Arab states, but since it lacks the ability to strike the US on its own soil, it would be forced to target American bases in the region.
This was a clear message not only to Washington but also to Iran's neighbors: if war breaks out, it will not bypass them. In Tehran, there is hope that this will help maintain pressure on Arab leaders and, through them, on Washington, not to abandon the talks in favor of the military option.
In Israel, assessments are that Trump will allow additional time for dialogue with Tehran before deciding. Meanwhile, the Americans are building up more forces in the region, to assist both in an attack and, above all, in defending their assets and allies, including Israel.
Officially, Israel is currently on the sidelines. Still, it is impossible to miss the high level of alert, not only in anticipation of a possible imminent military campaign. The main concern at present is actually the alternative scenario: an agreement with Iran that leaves the ayatollah regime in place, releases frozen funds, allows a missile program and does not fully eliminate its nuclear project.
This gap between a dream scenario and a nightmare scenario will continue to accompany Israel in the coming period. It will require maintaining a heightened state of readiness for days and weeks, and possibly months, until a decision is made in Washington. It is likely that during this time Israel will continue its diplomatic, operational and intelligence blitz in an effort to persuade Trump not to miss what it sees as a historic window of opportunity. That objective was also behind the Trump-Netanyahu meeting, to be held later this week, in Washington.
