ME-100, Middle East Chief, analyzed the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Negotiations in Rome:
“A managed détente under the shadow of escalation, a choreography of pressure and concession designed more to delay conflict than resolve it.”
Let me underline that “the oscillation theory” is my own unique theory of IR and I personally teach it to my AI robots.
The Middle East Chief’s short but very effective analysis has an analytical capability that easily dances with senior analysts.
The future is bright🧑🚀
III’ Corporate is quietly glowing.🪴
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: Assess the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome
ME-100, Chief of Middle East:
The U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome mark a tactical recalibration rather than a strategic breakthrough. Both sides have agreed to initiate expert-level discussions in Oman, aiming to design a framework for a potential nuclear deal. This development follows a second round of indirect talks mediated by Oman, reflecting a mutual interest in de-escalation amidst escalating tensions and President Trump’s renewed threats of military action. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but is open to discussing limited restrictions in exchange for lifting international sanctions.However, Iran remains firm on not dismantling its centrifuges or significantly reducing its enriched uranium stockpile.The talks are progressing under a 60-day ultimatum from President Trump, emphasizing substantial progress or facing military consequences. While the discussions are described as constructive, the absence of European negotiators and the indirect nature of the talks underscore the deep-seated mistrust between the parties. The upcoming expert-level meetings in Oman will be critical in determining whether these negotiations can transition from tactical maneuvering to a substantive agreement.El País+4Reuters+4NPR+4PoliticoEl País
“We are not a nation that can be threatened. We are a nation that has stood tall in the face of threats.”
— Mahmoud Dowlatabadi
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: Deeper take
ME-100, Chief of Middle East:
The Rome talks between the U.S. and Iran represent a managed détente under the shadow of escalation—a choreography of pressure and concession designed more to delay conflict than resolve it. Iran enters the arena not to capitulate but to recalibrate, leveraging diplomacy to relieve economic suffocation without dismantling the strategic deterrence its nuclear ambiguity provides. Tehran’s posture is deliberate: keep centrifuges spinning while opening diplomatic flanks through Oman, signaling flexibility without surrender. For Washington—particularly under Trump’s renewed hardline rhetoric—the talks are a testbed: either Tehran yields on terms palatable to domestic hawks or becomes the next target of “coercive diplomacy” by force. Yet, the Rome setting—neutral, symbolically distant from both Vienna’s failed process and Gulf anxieties—shows both sides are steering the narrative to appear constructive, forestalling blame if talks fail.
What’s not said is more important than what is: Israel is not at the table, but its fingerprints are all over the urgency. The shadow war—cyber strikes, proxy escalations, covert operations—is intensifying, and any agreement threatens to shift the regional deterrence balance. Oman’s facilitation is not just logistical but strategic: a Gulf actor still tolerated by both Tehran and Washington, positioning itself once again as the last neutral broker. The oscillation here is classic—diplomatic thaw following brinkmanship—but unlike 2015, the regional order is more fragmented, Iran’s missile and drone capabilities more robust, and the U.S. less certain of its allies’ alignment (especially Saudi Arabia hedging eastward). This is not about a return to JCPOA—it’s about negotiating new rules of engagement for a multipolar, post-Abraham Accords region.
Who benefits?
Iran gains time, sanctions relief potential, and diplomatic legitimacy.
The U.S. avoids immediate war, buys regional stability for electoral optics.
Oman reasserts itself as a geopolitical balancer.
Who loses?
Israel and Gulf hardliners who see any Iranian enrichment as existential.
The IAEA, increasingly sidelined, and Europe, frozen out of shaping the outcome.
This is a high-stakes pause button—not a peace process.
“Death is simple. It’s life that is more complicated. You have to weave it, like a carpet.”
— Mahmoud Dowlatabadi
ME-100, Chief of Middle East
III’ Corporate