Was Saudi minister’s Tehran visit a gesture of neutrality or mediation?

Shamkhani, in a post on X Saturday, said the delegation will approach the talks with seriousness, while expecting concrete guarantees from the US side.

He also referred to balance as one of the principles, meaning no party should walk away with all the gains. Other conditions include “sanctions relief, rejection of the Libya or UAE model, a halt to US threats, swift progress, containment of disruptive actors like Israel, and facilitation of foreign investment.”

“Iran is here for a balanced deal, not surrender,” he wrote. The comments come ahead of Saturday’s scheduled new round of negotiations with the US.

Shamkhani’s statement highlights Iran’s position of maintaining a uranium enrichment program, rejecting the Libyan example when Muammar Gadhafi surrendered his nuclear weapons program, or the UAE model, which is purely civilian.

While the Trump administration appears divided over the goals of the talks with Iran, the president and senior officials have repeatedly emphasized that Tehran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons—implying that Iran’s current uranium enrichment activities should be permanently halted.

Axios website previously quoted an Israeli official as saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports a Libya-style model for Iran—complete dismantlement of its nuclear program.

US Senator Lindsey Graham has also echoed that position, but Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi dismissed it, saying, “They can only dream of that.”

The report published on Thursday said that Iran offered to temporarily reduce the level of its uranium enrichment in exchange for significant sanctions relief, including permission to export oil, as the first phase of an agreement with the United States. Later phases would involve Tehran making a “permanent” pledge not to enrich uranium beyond the 3.67% limit set by the Obama-era JCPOA. The arrangement would also include Iran shipping out highly enriched uranium to a third country in exchange for further sanctions relief, including the lifting of longstanding US sanctions.

The sources told Iran International that Witkoff’s positive response to the Iranian proposal surprised their delegation in Muscat.

What the diplomats did not clarify is the fate of roughly 17,000 uranium enrichment machines, known as centrifuges—arguably the most critical component of Iran’s current nuclear program. These are the machines capable of refining uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90%.

Under the JCPOA agreement, Iran was allowed to keep 5,000 machines in operation for ten years, with roughly 7,500 centrifuges kept in storage. That limitation that Tehran has already violated would end in 2025.

Since the US withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran has significantly increased its number of centrifuges in operation and deployed more advanced models with higher output. If Tehran is allowed to retain a substantial portion of this infrastructure, it could resume higher-level enrichment at any time.

The Arms Control Association said in 2022 that, “Several of Iran’s escalatory breaches have resulted in its acquisition of new knowledge and expertise that cannot be reversed.”

The Islamic Republic urgently needs sanctions relief, as its economy is in deep crisis and the national currency has lost nearly half its value since September. If the United States lifts some sanctions and unfreezes assets in exchange for only a temporary reduction in enrichment, Tehran will feel less pressure to move quickly toward further phases of the proposed agreement.

This could allow Iran to stall for time—as it did during the Biden administration—until President Trump nears the end of his term and the 2028 election campaign begins. This may explain why Tehran, according to the report, has prioritized the lifting of oil export sanctions in the first phase.

Iran has consistently insisted that the US must “show good faith” in any negotiation. This has typically meant lifting at least some of the sanctions reimposed by President Trump in 2018. Tehran has also called for an end to US “pressure,” a demand that could reduce Washington’s leverage in protracted talks if sanctions are eased too early.

Iran began enriching uranium to 60 percent in 2021 following a December 2020 parliament decision to retaliate against the US. Interestingly, for more than two years Iran waited during the first Trump term before taking any drastic retaliatory step and only upped the ante after President Joe Biden’s election. Until then, enrichment levels had remained below 5 percent.

If Iran retains its centrifuge infrastructure, it remains capable of resuming high-level enrichment—as it has done since 2021. One of the core criticisms of the JCPOA is that it never fully banned enrichment, and many of its key restrictions are now approaching expiration.

On the diplomatic and economic fronts, a partial or phased agreement would allow Iran to build closer ties with countries such as India, and trade more freely with China and Europe. That would reduce the urgency currently driving Iran’s negotiations—and could complicate US efforts to pursue a phased deal in a meaningful way.

“It is ideology, flexible ideology. Extremist, but flexible,” Alizadeh said. “Using lies, creating lies—that’s part of their strategy.”

Alizadeh, who served in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 22 years, said Tehran’s current posture is motivated by a desire to stay afloat amid both internal unrest and external pressure.

Despite having defected, Alizadeh says he remains in contact with individuals inside Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and remains familiar with official policy thinking.

He offered insight into the mindset of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling him a revolutionary who clings to the vision of his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to export the Islamic Revolution.

“The reality is dictating to Khamenei that in this situation—internally because of the economic problems inside Iran, and tension with many parts of the world, particularly with Israel and the United States, and now with the European Union,” he said.

According to Alizadeh, pressure is mounting: Israel’s strikes on Iran’s regional proxies, economic hardship, domestic dissent, and the looming threat of “snapback” sanctions from the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany) are all pushing Tehran toward tactical concessions.

Despite its defiant stance, he said, Iran will most likely cave to US demands—but only temporarily.

Flipping his lights on and off, Alizadeh emphasized: “The nuclear program is like this: switch on. Switch off."

Iran permits nuclear inspectors into the country, he added, but blocks human rights monitors because Tehran can pause nuclear activities but cannot hide rights abuses.

Alizadeh served as a diplomat in Finland during the 2009 contested elections, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declared victory sparked mass protests.

Supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi claimed the vote was rigged, leading to a nationwide crackdown.

That moment, Alizadeh said, shattered his lifelong beliefs.

“When the Green Movement erupted in Iran was a moment that I always describe it as rebirth for myself,” he said.

Alizadeh pointed to the lack of public outrage from Iran’s hardliners in the face of renewed diplomacy—even with President Donald Trump whom the detest for ordering the killing of military leader Qasem Soleimani and withdrew from an earlier nuclear deal during his first term.

“Trump is in office—the Trump who killed Qasem Soleimani and the Trump who withdraw his country out of the JCPOA,” Alizadeh said. “None of the hardliners are saying anything against the talks. So, in fact, it's a matter of survival. They know this is a real game.”

Alizadeh said he advises American officials that Iranian diplomacy should not be compared to the Western model. In Iran’s case, it’s a calculated tool to manipulate perception.

“For Khamenei, diplomacy is a tool. He used it as instrument to trick people that, I am a rational person. Iran under me is a normal country like all the others,” Alizadeh said.

To hear more from Hossein Alizadeh, watch the full episode of Eye for Iran on YouTube or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Castbox, or Amazon.

On Thursday, the moderate conservative outlet Khabar Online questioned the credibility of reports based on unnamed "informed sources," describing such coverage as “destructive” and driven by factional interests. The website criticized “political celebrities” who allegedly fabricate news to maintain their public profile and called out media outlets publishing such content as “unprofessional.”

In particular, Khabar Online targeted Tehran Times, a hardline English-language daily, for its report ahead of the Oman talks, which quoted anonymous sources as claiming the Americans were only wasting time. The article labeled Tehran Times’ reporting as "irrelevant." The same paper also quoted a source who said the US had no intention of holding constructive negotiations with Iran—an assertion later contradicted by both Tehran and Washington, which described the talks as “positive and constructive.”

Tehran Times is affiliated with the Islamic Propagation Office, a body dominated by hardliners. During the 2014–2015 negotiations that led to the nuclear deal, similar tactics were observed. Press TV, Iran’s English-language state news channel, frequently aired misleading stories intended to undermine the talks. At the time, Press TV was headed by Peyman Jebelli—now the head of state broadcasting, overseeing dozens of Persian and foreign-language channels that continue to distort news about the current negotiations.

Back then, deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi publicly criticized Press TV’s reliance on so-called informed sources, saying: “Whoever gives fake news to Press TV as an 'informed source' is certainly not an informed person.” Later, former presidential chief of staff Mahmoud Vaezi blamed Ali Shamkhani and Nour News, a media outlet linked to him, for deliberately trying to derail the talks. Shamkhani was then serving as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

He and his family have been implicated with involvement in operations to sell Iranian oil in contravention of current US sanctions.

More recently, conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri remarked that “around 90 percent of what is attributed to 'informed sources' is fabricated.” He added that such individuals often blend truth with fiction and lack the courage to identify themselves.

Media activists in Iran have long accused state television and hardline outlets like the Kayhan daily—closely linked to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—of manipulating the news. As a result, public trust has eroded. According to several domestic and international surveys, Iranians now rely more heavily on social media and foreign-based Persian-language broadcasters for news.

Amid this credibility gap, some officials have sought to exploit the confusion. Following widespread rumors on social media that Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi had taken a valuable golden pen from the negotiating table in Oman, he dismissed the story days later as a fabrication by foreign-based opposition groups. But by then, the narrative had already taken root and spread widely.

A similar pattern emerged in the episode surrounding the change of venue for the second round of talks—from Oman to Rome. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei initially reacted with a post on X accusing the US of lacking seriousness and commitment. Days later, Gharibabadi attempted to downplay the shift, calling it a “minor development.” But by then, the damage was done. The episode also revealed what Iranian officials appeared keen to conceal: that it was the United States, not Iran, that ultimately determined the venue of the talks.

“Speaking of a trillion-dollar investment from the United States is nothing but a dream and fantasy,” said Ferial Mostofi, head of the Investment Services Center at the Tehran Chamber of Commerce, in an interview with Shargh daily. “How can we expect foreign investors to come to Iran when domestic investors move their capital out of the country?”

In its article titled “Foreign Investment: Mirage or Reality?”, Shargh referred to a claim circulating in Iranian circles that Tehran is seeking an agreement with the United States to guarantee $1 trillion in US investment over twenty years. “This claim means the United States would have to invest $50 billion in Iran annually.”

Shargh also recalled past official claims that China had pledged $400 billion in investments in Iran’s oil, gas, petrochemical, and transport sectors, while Russia’s Gazprom was expected to invest $40 billion in Iran’s gas industry. The article pointed out that none of those promised investments ever materialized.

“[A trillion-dollar US investment] is exactly like the much-discussed $400 billion investment from China [over twenty-five years],” the article said, arguing that China has not—and likely will not—invest such a large sum in Iran due to several factors, including inadequate hard infrastructure in transportation and energy, lack of transparency, and political risks.

Iran is in urgent need of foreign investment to revitalize its aging oil and gas infrastructure and to support other key sectors, including its large but struggling automotive industry.

According to the 2024 report of the UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Iran attracted $1.4 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2023. The meager figures stood at $1.5 billion in 2022 and $1.4 billion in 2021. The highest recorded FDI level was over $5 billion in 2017, following the implementation of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal which lifted UN economic sanctions against Iran.

President Masoud Pezeshkian said recently that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has no objection to American investment in Iran. Foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, writing in a Washington Post op-ed, put the onus on Washington to allow American companies to access what he described as a “trillion-dollar opportunity” in Iran. Neither Pezeshkian nor Araghchi provided specific details.

The Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) linked Javan newspaper appeared to support the idea of American investment in Iran in an article it published one day before the first round of Tehran-Washington talks in Muscat on April 8. “It is possible that we accept that some American companies have the opportunity to invest or sell their products, if Iran's economic interests are met. If sanctions are lifted, these companies will be eager to invest, and Iran will be unlikely to object.”

However, any American investment in Iran would require the removal of at least some of the primary US sanctions, many of which predate the nuclear-related sanctions.

While Khamenei has not officially banned American or other foreign investment, he has consistently advocated for stronger economic ties with Eastern countries such as Russia and China, expressing deep mistrust toward the West.

Despite publicly distancing himself from economic policymaking, Khamenei is widely believed to exert substantial control over Iran’s economy through political influence, economic entities under his authority, and the IRGC’s involvement. In one notable instance, he banned imports of South Korean electronics brands LG and Samsung in August 2021 to pressure Seoul over Iran's frozen funds.