Behind the US-Iran talks: five points of convergence between Trump and Khamenei

The ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States have taken an unexpected turn, with recent developments in Muscat, Oman shedding light on the potential for a breakthrough. In a statement on April 12, the White House described the talks as very positive and constructive. “As the first meeting, it was a constructive meeting held in a very peaceful and respectful environment, because no inappropriate language was used,” Iran’s lead negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said.

Although Rome was initially suggested as a possible setting, the second round of talks now is expected to take place in Oman on Saturday. US envoy Steve Witkoff said that moving forward, talks with Iran would be about verification of its nuclear program, stopping short of calling for Tehran to dismantle it altogether. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put a different gloss on the goal, saying, “We agree that Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. This can be achieved through an agreement—but only if it is a Libya-style agreement; one where the facilities are entered, dismantled, and destroyed under American supervision and execution— that’s good.”

And by Tuesday morning, Witkoff apparently had reversed his earlier statement, the president’s position was to eliminate Iran’s ability to enrich uranium.

Washington and Tehran will face many challenges in reaching an agreement, including pressure from warmongers in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran and proposals of unrealistic ideas such as Netanyahu’s suggestion of a “Libya-style” dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. But despite the multiple challenges negotiators face, at the heart of these discussions are five key points of convergence between Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and US President Donald Trump, both of whom have indicated an interest in de-escalating tensions and avoiding war.

Shared opposition to an Iranian Bomb. One of the most striking points of agreement between Khamenei and Trump is their mutual opposition to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. Despite the longstanding tensions and ideological differences between Tehran and Washington, both leaders agree that Iran should not pursue a nuclear bomb. In line with his longstanding stance, Khamenei has repeatedly declared that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that acquiring nuclear weapons would go against Islamic principles. Trump has also said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons and should reach a “verified nuclear peace agreement.”

A common aim: avoid war. Despite their tough rhetoric, both leaders understand the devastating consequences of a military conflict, not only for their respective nations but for the broader Middle East. Trump has frequently stated that he is not interested in starting a war with Iran, and Khamenei has echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that war is not a desirable option for either Iran and or the United States.  “We don’t seek a war, and they don’t either. They know it’s not in their interests,” Khamenei has said.

Opposition to regime change: a new US approach? While there is a shared desire to avoid war, the United States and Iran have sharply diverged in the past in regard to regime change. For years, the Iranian leader has accused the United States of attempting to instigate regime change in Tehran, a sentiment that has fueled much of the animosity between the two nations. But in a surprising shift, Trump has made it clear that his administration is not focused on a change in Iranian leadership. “We can’t get totally involved in all that (regime change). We can’t run ourselves, let’s face it,” Trump said before his election last fall. If continued now that Trump has regained office, this rhetorical shift could ease tensions and create a more conducive environment for dialogue.

Economic priorities: Trump’s focus on American interests. President Trump’s primary concern remains the economy, particularly the revitalization of the American economic landscape. His administration has consistently advocated for policies aimed at bolstering US economic strength and reducing the US trade deficit. While Trump has expressed interest in striking a deal with Iran, his focus on American economic interests means that any agreement will likely have significant economic components. Earlier this month, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that Iran’s supreme leader “has no opposition to American investors.” The Iranian president’s remarks framed the US-Iran talks in Oman as an opportunity for mutual economic gain and diplomatic progress. This willingness to engage in economic cooperation could serve as a foundation for broader diplomatic negotiations. Big economic deals could truly transform Iran–US relations and sweep away the problems between them like a massive flood.

Moderation in diplomacy. One of the most striking indicators of the shifting dynamic between Iran and the United States is the clear preference for diplomacy over confrontation. The recent rounds of negotiations in Oman have seen a moderating influence from key diplomatic figures. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US special representative Steven Witkoff have shown a pragmatic approach to the negotiations, focusing on finding common ground rather than exacerbating existing tensions. During talks in Muscat, Steven Witkoff underscored “that he had instructions from President Trump to resolve our two nations’ differences through dialogue and diplomacy, if that is possible.”

A path forward. US President Donald Trump has indicated that he’s in a hurry to reach an agreement and that he believes Iran is intentionally delaying a nuclear deal with the United States. “I think they’re tapping us along,” Trump said.

A realistic framework for a quick, win-win outcome for both sides will involve significant compromise from both countries.

Iran will need to accept maximum transparency and inspection of nuclear facilities within the framework of international regulations as a strong guarantee that is will not seek nuclear weapons. Those transparency and inspection measures should also be coupled with voluntary confidence-building measures, such as Iranian agreement to reduce the level at which it enriches uranium from the current 60 percent to the 5 percent of fissionable uranium 235 used in most commercial nuclear power plants.

Meanwhile, the United States will have to respect Iran’s rights for a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which includes acceptance of uranium enrichment by and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

The Muscat talks were indirect, meaning that discussions were mediated by Oman. At the end of the negotiations, Araghchi and Witkoff did engage in direct conversation. However, in future negotiations, direct talks will increase the chances of reaching an agreement.

Moreover, the best option would be to hold subsequent rounds of talks at the Omani Embassy, alternating between Tehran and Washington. The US Congress and the Iranian parliament play an important role in the process of resolving hostilities. A meeting between Witkoff and Iranian parliamentarians in Tehran, and between Araghchi and members of the US Congress in Washington, would significantly help both sides better understand one another.