The United States and Iran reopened indirect negotiations in Muscat on 6 February, a cautious diplomatic step taken under the aegis of Oman and after intense regional lobbying. Iran’s delegation was led by Foreign Minister Alaghezi and the U.S. side by President Trump’s special envoy, Witkoff; the talks are explicitly framed around Iran’s nuclear programme and potential U.S. sanctions relief.
The meeting follows an extraordinary burst of diplomatic pressure from Gulf and regional capitals. At least nine countries reportedly urged Washington to proceed, arguing that direct engagement would reduce the risk of miscalculation. Washington framed its decision as both deference to allies and a desire to keep a diplomatic option alive, while President Trump warned that failure could produce “bad” outcomes.
The resumption of talks came against a background of acute military tension. A day before the Muscat meeting, U.S. forces shot down an Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle that had approached the carrier strike group centred on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the first major clash since the recent build-up of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. Tehran warned it would retaliate against bases, ships and allied forces if attacked, even as it signalled a willingness to discuss the nuclear file.
Substantive gaps, however, remain stark. Iran insists the negotiations be confined to nuclear matters and rejects offers to place its missile programme or support for regional proxies on the table. Washington has made sweeping demands—reportedly including a cease to uranium enrichment, limits on ballistic missiles, and an end to proxy support—conditions Tehran regards as infringements of sovereignty, with missile constraints singled out as particularly intractable.
The recent diplomacy is not the first attempt to bridge these divides. Under Omani mediation in 2025 Tehran and Washington held multiple indirect rounds that failed to resolve core disagreements. The process collapsed after an Israeli strike in June that touched off a 12-day confrontation and U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, making the current talks a delicate restart rather than a reset.
Hardline rhetoric from Tehran’s leadership underscores how quickly the situation could deteriorate. Supreme Leader Khamenei warned that a U.S.-initiated war would trigger a regional conflagration. Chinese and Iranian analysts, and some Western observers, view American military pressure as leverage designed to produce concessions at the bargaining table rather than an objective in itself.
Regional capitals have been active in nudging both sides back to the table. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates publicly urged renewed dialogue and highlighted the wider regional cost of another war. Tehran has conditioned its participation on dignity, reciprocity and the absence of threats, signalling it will not accept talks framed by what it deems unrealistic ultimatums.
For international audiences the outcome of these talks matters because the stakes extend beyond diplomacy between two adversaries. Any agreement—or its collapse—would affect oil markets, shipping security in the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic calculations of Israel and Gulf states, and the credibility of U.S. security commitments in the region. The most likely near-term result is a narrow, phased confidence-building process that reduces immediate risk but leaves the core strategic competition unresolved.