Table Stakes - March 31st

Good morning everyone,

I’m Daniel, and welcome to Table Stakes!

Here’s a look at today’s topics:

• Iran Officially Refuses Talks With U.S. Channels

• First Japan, China, and S.K. Economic Discussion Takes Place in 5 Years

• Pakistan to Afghan Refugees: Leave or Be Deported

We got hundreds of emails, and we just dropped some merch after you all asked us to restock. All profits go towards the LA Firefighters Foundation
You can get it at our shop here.

Iran Officially Refuses Talks With U.S. Channels

_{By: Daniel Murrah, Staff Writer for Atlas}

In a notable turn in US-Iran ties, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on March 30th, 2025, that Tehran has officially turned down direct talks with the United States following a letter from President Donald Trump. The letter, which included both warnings of possible military action and invitations for discussion, urged discussions to handle Iran's developing nuclear program and established a two-month deadline for progress on a nuclear accord.

The Situation

Iran's refusal was sent via Omani diplomatic channels, which makes sense given the Gulf state's ongoing intermediate position between the two states. Although Iranian authorities shut the door on direct discussions, they kept the door open for indirect ones, implying a more complex strategy instead of a total diplomatic closure.

Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister, made Tehran's stance clear: Iran would not deal directly under what it views as military and economic coercion from Washington. The rejection occurs in a context of increased regional tensions including ongoing wars involving Iranian-backed organizations like the Houthis in Yemen and terrorist factions in Gaza, circumstances that have driven more intense US bombings against Iranian proxies.

Tehran's official reply mentioned deep-seated mistrust and continuous US "maximum pressure" policies, including sanctions and military threats, as basic barriers to direct involvement.

Oman’s Role

Oman's role as the conduit for Iran's reaction reflects the Gulf state's special and long-lasting role in US-Iran relations. Unlike other possible mediators in the area, Oman has always been a reliable middleman between Washington and Tehran, using its neutral position, historical connections with both countries, and strategic geographic proximity to the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

Oman's diplomatic strategy emphasizes facilitation above direct involvement or agreement brokering. This involves keeping rigorous neutrality to foster confidence with all concerned parties, sending signals between enemies, and organizing sessions for indirect talks. Especially in times of great tension, these qualities have made Oman a vital conduit for communication between the United States and Iran.

The Gulf state's diplomatic credentials in this partnership are well-established. Serving as a site for first covert conversations, Oman was instrumental in the backchannel talks that resulted in the 2015 JCPOA (U.S. signed nuclear deal with Iran). More recently, in January 2024, Oman enabled covert indirect talks aimed at lowering Iran's backing for Houthi missile strikes on Red Sea commerce and handling sanctions release. Oman was said to have participated in talks to trade messages meant to lower regional conflict risk following US airstrikes on Iran-aligned Houthi’s in Yemen earlier this month.

Strategic Considerations

Iran seems to be following a measured approach that avoids appearing weak at home while keeping diplomatic channels open abroad by rejecting direct talks but staying open to indirect ones. While opposing US pressure strategies, such as sanctions meant to limit Iran's influence in the Middle East, Tehran wants to use its nuclear developments as a negotiating tool.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran possesses significant quantities of enriched uranium close to weapons-grade levels, raising fears of nuclear proliferation. The US has demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear enrichment and missile programs as part of any agreement, a position that creates substantial obstacles to reaching a compromise.

Trump's approach mixes promises for diplomacy with warnings of military force. The administration, nevertheless, is doubtful of indirect negotiations given their previous failure since the US departure from the JCPOA in 2018. Diplomatic progress is made more difficult by this doubt combined with Iran's unwillingness to participate directly.

Tensions could rise more without progress in indirect talks, thus raising the possibility of military conflict. The present deadlock takes place in a context of increased regional instability including wars involving Iranian-backed organizations like the Houthi’s who have carried out dozens of maritime attacks in the past few years. On the other hand, effective mediation via Oman might open the door for fresh conversation.

The distrust between Washington and Tehran is based in decades of animosity since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and have been aggravated by the aforementioned recent events. This tension is intensified with relations between the U.S. and Israel, as the feud between the two middle eastern countries have been self evident for generations.

The function of intermediaries like Oman gets more and more important as both countries plan their strategies. The historical record indicates that even in times of great enmity, trustworthy routes of indirect communication have sometimes produced advancement. Though it is unclear whether this trend will continue in this situation, it is one of the very few avenues for de-escalation in an otherwise deteriorating diplomatic environment.

Subscribe to Table Stakes to read the rest.