Efforts are once again underway to revive diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran. But this time, a different set of questions dominate the conversation in Tehran: Should Iran place its trust in Donald Trump again? How much reliance should be placed on foreign allies like Russia and China? And what, if anything, could be Iran’s trump card—or rather, Trump’s trump card—in these high-stakes talks?

Changing Geopolitical Realities

According to a senior Western diplomat who spoke anonymously, Tehran has experienced not just the physical devastation of war, but also psychological and diplomatic shocks that have shaken its long-standing beliefs about international alliances. One key realization is the limited reliability of so-called “imagined allies” like Russia and China.

There had been widespread assumptions in Iranian political and analytical circles that, should Israel and the United States escalate their attacks on Iran beyond a certain threshold, Moscow and Beijing would step forward as protective buffers. These assumptions gained temporary weight when Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, claimed that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear installations might prompt several countries to directly supply nuclear weapons to Iran. However, he later clarified that Russia would not be among those nations.

Russia’s Conditional Loyalty

Despite past cooperation, Russia’s commitment to Iran appears circumstantial rather than ideological. Analysts point out that Moscow never played the robust supporting role it was expected to when it came to defending Iran’s interests in Syria during the civil war to protect the Assad regime.

Moreover, in terms of economics, Russia’s relationship with Iran is laced with contradiction. On one hand, both countries share a mutual interest in countering US influence. On the other hand, if US sanctions on Iran were lifted, the Islamic Republic could flood the global market with oil, significantly reducing Russia’s share and damaging its already strained wartime economy. For a Russia burdened by the costs of the Ukraine conflict, this would be an unwelcome outcome.

China: The Silent Giant

China’s stance remains cautious and calculated. It has historically avoided direct involvement in foreign conflicts, preferring instead to fortify its global economic footprint. Nonetheless, Beijing has made it clear—through diplomatic signals—that it is now militarily capable of defending its national interests. But whether this military readiness would ever be deployed to protect Iran remains highly doubtful.

So, if neither Russia nor China can be fully relied upon as strategic shields, what options does Iran have?

Self-Reliance and Diplomatic Calculations

The primary fallback is self-reliance, particularly in national defense and nuclear policy. But herein lies a challenge: if new negotiations include clauses that require Iran to halt uranium enrichment or scale back its missile development, they may prove deeply contentious and complex. Such demands would run counter to Iran’s strategic pursuit of deterrence.

According to an Iranian diplomat, this is precisely where the role of the Sultanate of Oman becomes crucial. Known for its mastery in quiet diplomacy, Oman has historically served as a vital channel of communication between Tehran and Washington. The country’s longstanding commitment to regional peace has earned it a unique level of trust from both sides.

Europe’s Role in Revival Efforts

Meanwhile, the three European signatories of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal—Britain, France, and Germany—are pushing for the resumption of indirect talks between Iran and the United States. They argue that diplomatic engagement must continue, even amid active conflict. Dialogue, they stress, is not optional but essential—even during war.

However, hopes for a breakthrough suffered a significant blow on June 13 when Israel launched a direct attack on Iran. The U.S. soon joined the fray, targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a 12-day bombing campaign that pushed the region to the brink of another all-out war. A ceasefire was reached on June 24, but not without damage—both physical and diplomatic.

Lessons from War: Iran’s Missile Might

Despite the destruction, Iranian military analysts believe one important lesson emerged: the effectiveness of Iran’s missile defense systems. These capabilities allowed Tehran to mount a meaningful counter-response, ultimately forcing a truce. Strengthening these defense mechanisms has since become a strategic priority.

With military calculations in place, attention is again turning to diplomatic channels. Experts now say Oman’s role is more significant than ever. As a neutral broker, Oman is seen as uniquely capable of bridging gaps, restoring trust, and possibly reviving the long-stalled nuclear dialogue.

Trump’s Economic Strategy: A Double-Edged Sword?

Now, attention turns to what might be the key motivator behind Washington’s engagement: economics. Some analysts believe Trump’s strategy to impose higher tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia is part of a broader scheme to economically isolate Moscow. If Iran were to be reintegrated into global markets through a successful deal, it would offer an alternative source of oil, thereby weakening Russia’s economic leverage.

Seen in this light, the removal of sanctions from Iran might not just be about diplomacy with Tehran, but also a tactical move against Moscow. This would make a successful US-Iran deal a powerful geopolitical tool—or a “trump card” in the truest sense—for the American administration.

Final Thoughts

In this volatile landscape, filled with mistrust and shifting alliances, Iran stands at a crossroads. The path to renewed dialogue is fraught with complexity—military calculations, economic repercussions, and deep-rooted geopolitical rivalries. But if any breakthrough is to be achieved, it will likely require more than backchannel diplomacy. It will require bold strategic vision, a willingness to compromise, and perhaps most importantly, an understanding that in global politics, yesterday’s allies can quickly become today’s competitors.

As for Iran, its greatest asset may be not just in missiles or uranium stockpiles, but in its ability to leverage diplomatic ambiguity and economic necessity—a tactic it has perfected over decades of isolation and pressure. Whether this will be enough to bring Washington back to the table remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: in this game of high-stakes diplomacy, no card—no matter how surprising—can be ruled out.