In the current volatile diplomatic landscape, the delay of the fourth round of talks between Iran and the United States, which was supposed to take place in Rome on May 3, signals deeper challenges lurking beneath the surface of the negotiations. This delay, officially and jointly announced by the foreign ministers of Iran and Oman, seems to hold dimensions beyond logistical issues, particularly given that an important meeting between Iran and the European Troika, scheduled to take place before the Rome negotiations, has also been postponed, adding to the complexity of the situation.

Initiative to Delay or Pressure Tactic?

At the same time, the United States, through its State Department spokesperson, has attempted to show that there has been no delay in planning and that no specific time or place for the fourth round has been announced. However, media sources close to Iran have reported that the initiative for the delay was taken by Tehran in response to Washington's contradictory positions. This comes despite the fact that just a few days prior, the Iranian Foreign Ministry had announced the negotiations would definitely take place on Saturday.

Where Differences Reach a Level

An analysis of the third round of talks—which coincided with the start of technical negotiations—shows that entering the phase of technical details has naturally increased the level of disagreements and hardened the positions of both parties against one another. At this stage, expectations for achieving broad agreements have given way to disputes over specific technical clauses. Prior to the commencement of the first round of negotiations, it was anticipated that subsequent rounds would be accompanied by greater complexities.

Trigger Mechanism in the Warning Field

In this context, the recent statement from the French Foreign Ministry that, in the event of failed negotiations, it would not hesitate to act to restore UN sanctions against Iran should be interpreted within the rules of the game where France plays the role of the bad cop. However, it may also contain a European message. Although the tone of this statement was interpreted by observers as a clear threat, the strong response from the Islamic Republic of Iran, including explicit statements from the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, indicates that Tehran considers any attempt to activate the trigger mechanism as its red line and has planned proportional retaliatory measures in response.

American Shift and Iranian Persistence on Sovereignty Rights

Evidence, particularly statements made by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, suggests that one of the main points of contention likely revolves around the continuation of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil and existing stockpiles. Some conflicting information released by primarily Western media indicates that the United States, in the exchanged messages, has emphasized the transfer of enriched stockpiles abroad, contrary to its initial positions, which has met with serious opposition from Iran. Tehran believes that any agreement will only be possible if the country’s sovereign right to peacefully utilize nuclear technology is respected.

Tehran's Diplomatic Efforts to Neutralize Pressures

In this vein, the recent conversation between Abbas Araghchi and Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, should be analyzed within the framework of Tehran’s efforts to leverage multilateral capacities and neutralize unilateral pressures from the US. In this phone discussion, which took place ahead of the new round of negotiations, Araghchi emphasized Iran's legitimate right to peaceful use of nuclear technology and warned about the consequences of a potential return of UN sanctions. Guterres welcomed the continuation of the dialogue path, called for restraint from all parties, and expressed his support for efforts to reduce tensions.

Two Edges of Trump's Strategy in Dealing with Iran

In a strategic analysis of these developments, it must be noted that the Trump administration continues to employ a model of simultaneous pressure alongside bargaining; a model aimed at forcing Iran to concede under threat. In response, the Islamic Republic of Iran is also maintaining its diplomatic path while formulating a deterrent equation to prevent the imposition of an agreement that does not align with its national interests.

In this context, maintaining active communication with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and cautiously engaging with Europe are part of Tehran’s strategy to create a balance between the Washington front and the European Troika.

Neither a Dead End nor Complete Advancement

Despite increasing tensions, the current situation cannot be considered a dead end. The delay in negotiations, while indicative of the fragility of the dialogue process, also reflects the continued political will of both sides to maintain a diplomatic path. The role of Oman in facilitating communications and the European Troika's interest in preserving the agreement indicate that there is still room for maneuvering towards an agreement, even though the playing field has been significantly restricted.

Is the Fourth Round a Point of Return or Explosion?

The third round of negotiations was not only an entry point into technical discussions but also a turning point in shaping the red lines of both parties. Whenever the fourth round is held, it must inevitably proceed with regard to these delineated lines. The future of the path depends not only on political will but also on the ability of both sides to redesign their interaction model under confrontation; a model that, if not designed, will significantly increase the likelihood of reverting to the cycle of past tensions.