The Trump administration and the Iranian regime made progress in direct talks on Saturday in Oman and scheduled another round of talks next Saturday in Rome. The U.S. launched the meetings — the first such talks under President Trump — as a last-ditch diplomatic attempt before resorting to military options. “Obviously, we can’t allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and they’re getting dangerously close to that,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Saturday’s “This Week on Capitol Hill.”

Negotiations began with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sending messages to one another from separate rooms. However, they eventually met directly, speaking for around 45 minutes in a conversation one observer called “substantive, serious, and excellent.” Iran already staggers under severe sanctions imposed by the Trump administration, as well as the defeat of its terrorist proxies in their war against Israel, which experts suggest could prompt the regime to consider compromise solutions.

“The direct talks are a big break,” explained Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” Iran doesn’t “want to talk directly with what they call the ‘Great Satan.’ And so, it really is a softening of their position by a lot to openly say, ‘Yeah, we are engaging in direct talks with the United States.’”

The Iranian regime likely agreed to the meetings because they “know how dire the consequences were for them under President Trump before when they put Operation Maximum Pressure on,” Davidson declared. Foreign policy expert Ilan Berman added on “Washington Watch” that, “back in mid-February, [Trump] reinstated the maximum pressure policy of sweeping economic sanctions.”

“This is a different team than we saw in ‘Trump 45,’ but they’re probably telling them exactly what their predecessors told them half a decade ago, which is that the Iranian regime has a consistent game plan,” Berman continued. “The game plan is to buy time to engage the West in open-ended negotiations, under the premise that the West doesn’t attack when the West is talking. … The Iranians are going to try to draw out the timetable as long as possible.”

But the Iranian regime may have little control over the timing of these negotiations. “The president has made very clear that the United States will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and that all options are on the table,” retired Air Force Brigadier General John Teichert stated on “Washington Watch.” If it “becomes clear that Iran is delaying, not negotiating in good faith or clearly is pursuing nuclear capability, then there’s going to be a combination of very strong responses from the United States and Israel.”

“Right now, the United States is poised militarily, with two carrier battle groups in the region and a slew of B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia [Air Force Base] in the general vicinity,” Teichert continued. “If we believe that the Iranians are still pursuing nuclear weapons, then both those very extreme economic maximum pressure sanctions will take place, and likely we will strike the Iranian nuclear capability in conjunction with our friends in Israel.”

While Iran may benefit from drawing out the negotiations, American policy must consider various timetables, Berman described. First, the final provisions from the Obama administration’s Iran deal (JCPOA) are set to expire in October, which would make it “much harder to reimpose multilateral sanctions on Iran.” Second, intelligence estimates predict that Iranian scientists need six to 18 months (between this summer and next summer) to turn their weapons-grade uranium into an effective weapon. Third, in November 2026, both the U.S. and Israel are scheduled to hold elections (if Israel has not held elections already), and the governments in both countries would like to have something to show for their efforts vis-à-vis Iran before those elections are held.

“That’s why the president set the two-month timeline,” Berman explained. “And that’s why, when the president sent his letter a couple of weeks ago to the Iranian ayatollahs, he said, ‘This is an offer that is not infinite.’ … Everything that you’re seeing now — not on the diplomatic front, but in terms of military repositioning, in terms of strategic assets being deployed — it’s all part of conveying the seriousness of that timetable.”

“The Iranian regime needs this deal very, very badly as a lifeline to keep its regime in power,” he explained. “If you look inside the regime itself, it’s enormously rickety. The Iranian economy is spiraling into an ever-deepening, domestic crisis. There’s a crisis of faith in Iran, something like two-thirds of the country’s 75,000 mosques are now shuttered because of lack of attendance, which is a death knell for an ideological, religious regime.”

Additionally, “the upper echelons of the Iranian leadership are old. They’re infirm, in their 80s, in their 90s. There is generational change that is coming to Iran,” he stated. “The next generation of leaders wants to stay in power as well,” Davidson described. So, it’s worth asking, “To what extent do they have any influence? What kind of future do they want to shape for their country?”

Iran also enters these negotiations in a uniquely weak position, given the calamities it has faced over the past 18 months. “Israel and the United States can strike Iran, any target, at any time, at will. And Iran has demonstrated that they cannot do the same against Israel,” recalled Teichert. “Their proxy network has been degraded substantially. And so, for the region, Iran has far fewer levers to pull … and that’s going to play into their minds. … That will make them more likely to negotiate away those nuclear weapons than they would have been just a year and a half ago.”

Even worse for the rogue state, Iran cannot count on major assistance from Russia, Davidson pointed out. “With Russia being forced out of Syria [and] Russia being tied up in Ukraine, Russia doesn’t look like somebody that’s going to be able to come in and rush to their aid.”

If anything, Berman suggested that “the fear on the part of the Iranian regime” would be that “too quick a capitulation, too comprehensive a capitulation to Washington would rebound to their detriment, would make them seem weak.” He recommended that Iran’s best play is “to hammer out a package of concessions from the United States,” which “would essentially establish their permanence in the face of all these internal tensions.”

But that optimal play would require compromise on the part of an ideological regime. “Right now, the Ayatollah has a choice to make, because ultimately, a dictatorial regime like Iran cares about one primary thing, and that’s regime survival,” said Teichert. “The Ayatollah has to weigh the decision: whether pursuing nuclear weapons allows him to maintain control of Iran,” or “whether it is better for him and the regime to negotiate away from nuclear weapons in order to maintain the stability of the regime.”

Iran has reportedly reached the moment of decision already, as the U.S. wants Iran to take concrete steps away from its nuclear weapons program, such as “downblending” its near-weapons-grade uranium to lower levels of concentration, which could only be used for civilian energy production.

“Countries in the region … don’t see Iran as a security producer. They see it as a threat,” Berman warned. “But taking it off the board in a lasting way would be enormously beneficial to regional security in the Middle East.”