Iran and the United States concluded a third round of indirect nuclear talks on Saturday in Muscat, Oman, with both sides citing “serious progress” but warning that significant disagreements remain.
The negotiations, mediated by Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, lasted over four hours and involved both technical and senior-level discussions.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the talks “serious and focused,” noting that written proposals had been exchanged and that discussions had moved to more detailed issues. However, he urged “extreme caution,” emphasizing that key differences persist.
In an interview with Iranian state television, Araghchi admitted, “We have very deep disagreements. Can we reach an agreement? I’m hopeful, but also very cautious.”
American officials described the discussions as “positive and productive,” and confirmed that negotiations will continue in Europe, with a high-level meeting tentatively scheduled for May 3.
A major sticking point remains Iran’s insistence on its right to enrich uranium domestically, a capability that could also move Tehran closer to nuclear weapons production. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has clarified that Washington would only accept an Iranian civilian nuclear program that utilizes imported nuclear fuel.
Another significant disagreement centers around Iran’s ballistic missile program, with the United States pushing to include missile restrictions in any future deal.
Israeli lawmaker Ohad Tal (Religious Zionism Party) expressed deep skepticism regarding the negotiations, saying they are unlikely to yield any meaningful results.
“We are concerned about the talks, and this is not something that pleases us because we believe there is no real chance of negotiating with Iran and making any progress,” Tal said at the inaugural JNS International Policy Summit in Jerusalem on Monday.
“The whole purpose of the Iranian regime is to destroy Israel, and I don’t see any chance that they will give up on the very purpose of their existence through negotiations,” he added.
Tal acknowledged that U.S. President Donald Trump had political reasons for pursuing talks.
“We understand that President Trump has his own interests and needs to satisfy his base, which is why he is attempting negotiations,” he said. “If somehow they are able to reach something close to the Libya model, then we will support it. But I don’t see a real chance for that to happen.”
Ultimately, Tal argued, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program would require a far more drastic solution.
“At the end of the day, there is only one real option to take down Iran’s nuclear program, and that is by taking down the Iranian regime itself,” he said. “Otherwise, you chop off their legs and they’ll just grow new ones. Only by removing the regime will there be a real chance for stability in the region.”
The nuclear talks come amid heightened concerns over Iran’s accelerating atomic program. Since Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, Tehran has significantly expanded its uranium enrichment activities.
According to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iran now produces enough enriched uranium for one nuclear bomb per month, though completing an actual nuclear weapon would take several additional months.
The United States is demanding a full halt to enrichment activities and the importation of uranium for civilian purposes, while Iran insists that enrichment and its stockpile are non-negotiable national rights.
Israel has consistently opposed any agreement that allows Iran to maintain enrichment capabilities, warning that Tehran’s nuclear program poses an existential threat. Israeli officials have stressed that Jerusalem reserves the right to act independently to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Trump voiced cautious optimism about the negotiations. Speaking on Sunday in New Jersey, Trump said, “On the Iran situation, I think we are doing very well. I think a deal is going to be made there. It is going to happen. Pretty soon it is going to happen. We will have something without having to start dropping bombs all over the place.”
Trump had previously stressed that while he would not allow Israel to pull the United States into conflict, he would “lead the pack” if a strike became unavoidable. He also set a two-month deadline to reach a deal, declaring, “I prefer a deal over the alternative.”