Although Iran and the US are not directly talking to each other, indirect talks have been ongoing. Earlier this month, Trump revealed that he had sent a letter to the Iranian leadership. It was delivered to Iran by a leading Emirati diplomat, Anwar Gargash. The last time this happened was in 2019 when Japan’s then-prime minister, Shinzo Abe, brought a letter from Trump to Tehran. At the time, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bluntly told Abe that he had nothing to say to Trump and that he had no interest in such a letter.
Today, the situation is very different. Despite the tough rhetoric of Iranian officials against Trump and the US, Tehran has been clear that they intend to carefully study the letter and give their answer soon. So, it’s pretty clear the two sides are talking. According to Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Iranians have “reached out” to the US “through back channels, multiple countries and multiple conduits.”
We already know a good deal of what’s in the letter. Trump’s messaging on Iran has been very consistent ever since he was elected president in 2016: Assure me you won’t get a nuclear weapon and stop supporting the anti-Israel militias in the region, and we will lift the sanctions and allow you to prosper. But if you don’t do that, I will tighten the screws with sanctions and assist Israel in attacking you.
Trump has always made a point to stress the incentives for Iran, reassuring its leaders that he doesn’t seek regime change. In his interview, Witkoff emphasised the opportunity on the table to “clean it all up with Iran”, adding that Iran could see the sanctions lifted so that it could be “a great nation once again... able to grow its economy.” He also revealed some of the contents of the letter, which described Trump as “a president of peace” who wants to avoid military action against Iran and to “create a verification programme so that nobody worries about weaponisation.”
Two-month deadline
The letter has also been the subject of a few media leaks. According to Axios, it gives Iran two months to agree to Trump’s condition or face attacks. According to an Emirati academic, who also confirmed the two-month timeframe, Washington’s demands include dismantling its nuclear programme and halting its support for Houthis, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite groups.
It’s important to note that despite partisan squabbling in Washington on how to deal with Iran, Trump’s incentives and threats in this regard are strikingly similar to those of Obama and Biden.
For his part, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said that the letter “was mostly threatening, but there are also some potential opportunities in there.” This might seem like a negative reaction to the uninitiated. But comb between the lines, and you can get a much different read. In Iran-speak, this means that Tehran sees certain openings and it will respond to them. Araghchi said that the letter was being carefully considered and that Iran’s answer would “bear in mind both the threats and opportunities” in the letter.
In the past few weeks—even as Trump has repeatedly said he wants to talk to Iran—Khamenei has angered many in the country by declaring that it was not interested. But the goalposts are shifting. In his televised interview, Araghchi said: “We won’t conduct direct negotiations under pressure, threats and increase of sanctions.” Again, this leaves a lot of room for talks with Trump, so long as Iran can claim them as indirect and so long as Trump doesn’t raise sanctions.
In his latest speech, Khamenei also left some room for talks. Instead of repeating his position that Iran mustn’t engage with the US, he made two points: First, “they’d never get anywhere with threatening Iran.” Second, “if they show cruelty to the Irani nation, they’ll get a hard slap in the face.”
As tough-sounding as these comments are, they don’t exclude the prospect of negotiating with the US. In fact, Trump might respect the tough talk in response to his own open threats against Iran.
Tactical differences
There are important internal differences in Iran over approaches to the US, but they are mostly tactical. Early in March, Iran’s permanent representative at the UN issued a remarkable statement, declaring that “if the objective of negotiations is to address concerns vis-à-vis any potential militarization of Iran's nuclear programme, such discussions may be subject to consideration,” affirming, however, that Tehran would never agree to “the dismantlement of Iran's peaceful nuclear programme.”
