Iran and the United States met indirectly in Muscat on February 6, with Iran’s foreign minister Araghchi and a U.S. presidential envoy identified as Witkoff leading their respective delegations and Oman serving as intermediary. Oman’s foreign minister Badr met both visiting sides in separate photo-op moments, and Jared Kushner, identified as a U.S. participant, was also present in Muscat. The session was explicitly framed as indirect talks, underscoring the political sensitivities that prevent direct face-to-face negotiation between Tehran and Washington.
Oman has long cultivated a reputation as a discreet channel between Iran and Western capitals, and Muscat’s role in this exchange follows that established pattern. The choice of Oman signals both parties’ preference for controlled, low-profile interaction where sensitive topics can be floated without public escalation. The indirect format reflects domestic constraints in Tehran and Washington: direct diplomacy carries political costs that each government may not be prepared to absorb publicly.
The talks matter because they create a modest opening for de-escalation and pragmatic problem-solving in a region fraught with tensions. Possible agendas for such exchanges range from confidence-building measures and prisoner or detainee arrangements to discussions about regional incidents that risk military confrontation. They do not, however, imply an immediate return to broader agreements such as comprehensive nuclear or sanctions settlements; those would require prolonged, formal negotiations and greater political cover on both sides.
Regional reactions will be carefully watched. Gulf Arab states, Israel and other U.S. partners are likely to scrutinize any signals of rapprochement for implications on their own security postures and deterrence strategies. External powers including China and Russia may interpret even small openings as opportunities to recalibrate regional influence or encourage further diplomatic engagement that reduces the risk of kinetic escalation.
Expect this Muscat meeting to be the first of a sequence of cautious contacts rather than a breakthrough. If the exchanges produce tangible, limited results — for example, a swap, safer operational protocols at sea, or a tacit agreement to avoid certain escalatory moves — they could become the building blocks for more ambitious diplomacy. Conversely, without clear follow-up and domestic political space for compromise, the talks could remain symbolic and episodic, serving primarily as a pressure valve rather than a route to durable settlements.