In Iran, cautious optimism meets lingering doubt over US talks

The main headline on the front page of a conservative Iranian newspaper captures the national mood ahead of the upcoming Iran-US talks in Oman: “The Saturday of Hope and Doubt.”

Across two dozen newspapers on Wednesday, the sentiment was echoed in varying language—hope for a breakthrough tempered by uncertainty over whether the two sides will meet face to face and make tangible progress.

Gholamhossein Karbaschi, a prominent politician and proprietor of the centrist daily Ham Mihan, told the press that “if Iran’s political system had no intention of negotiating with the United States, it would not have responded to Trump’s letter.” In Iranian political discourse, “the political system” is often used as a stand-in for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Karbaschi added, “Some believe a revolutionary stance means constant confrontation and chanting slogans. But the people want a peaceful life. Breaking the current deadlock requires self-sacrifice from the negotiators.”

He urged negotiators to ignore the hardline rhetoric, alluding to MP Amir Hossein Sabeti, who recently said negotiations are unlikely to change anything, as well as to vigilante groups threatening to rally outside the Foreign Ministry.

At the same time, Hadi Borhani, an expert in Israeli affairs, sought to reassure the public in an interview with Khabar Online, saying that Israel must now operate within the limits set by President Trump. He added that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was likely caught off guard by Trump’s remarks about engaging in negotiations with Iran. Nonetheless, Borhani emphasized that Israel remains firmly opposed to the talks in Oman.

Meanwhile, reformist commentator and political analyst Ahmad Zeidabadi described the upcoming talks as a prelude to a potential reset in Tehran-Washington relations. He said the primary goal of this round of negotiations is to end the longstanding hostility between the two countries.

However, Zeidabadi cautioned that the Muscat talks cannot continue indefinitely. “There is a limited time frame for these negotiations, and their outcome—success or failure—could have far-reaching consequences,” he warned, calling the talks “extremely sensitive, critical, complicated, and fragile.”

Commenting on the fragility of the negotiations, the IRGC-affiliated daily Javan warned that “one word from Trump about Iran’s missile power will abruptly end the talks.” The paper argued that the most Iran can realistically offer is a reduction in uranium enrichment levels in exchange for the full lifting of sanctions.

Meanwhile, Hesamoddin Ashna, former deputy intelligence minister and adviser to President Hassan Rouhani, cautioned Iran’s leaders against “behaving like Qaddafi’s Libya” or entertaining illusions of leading the Arab and Muslim world. He also warned against overstating the strategic value of Iran’s outdated nuclear technology.

Elsewhere, the conservative newspaper Farhikhtegan predicted that internal divisions over how to approach negotiations with the US could reshape Iran’s political landscape—particularly within the conservative camp, where opposition to the talks remains strong.

Iran’s former security chief Ali Shamkhani emphasized the strategic value of the country’s nuclear program in a post on X, writing: “Iran’s peaceful nuclear capability is a complete chain from mine to final product—not just a scientific achievement, but a vital driver for medicine, energy, agriculture, and the environment. This national technology is stabilized, irreversible, and indestructible.”

Meanwhile, the debate over direct versus indirect negotiations continued. Vali Nasr, professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS and author of Iran’s Grand Strategy: How Sanctions Work, argued on X that while Trump created a bottleneck by insisting on direct talks, this approach could actually work in Iran’s favor. “Both sides will probably start the talks indirectly but eventually shift to direct negotiations,” Nasr wrote. Echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, he added that “the form of the talks is less important than their content.”