American and Iranian delegations met in Muscat on February 6 in the first direct diplomatic exchange since a wave of military strikes and tit‑for‑tat escalation last year. The talks were conducted indirectly through Omani intermediaries: Iran’s foreign minister, described in state reporting as Araghchi, submitted a proposal to Oman’s foreign minister Badr, who then relayed it to the U.S. team; Washington’s reply was returned the same way. Iranian officials called the meeting “positive” and “a good start,” but cautioned that it would not be a forum for surrendering core security capabilities.
The substance of the contact was narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear programme. Washington made clear it wants to curb Tehran’s nuclear capacity through diplomacy, but it also pushed to broaden the agenda to include Iran’s ballistic‑missile development and its backing for armed groups across the region. Tehran rejected such scope expansion, saying missiles and proxy relationships fall within its core defence and are not negotiable. The contrast in objectives underscores how far apart the two sides remain on what an acceptable settlement would look like.
The negotiation took place under intense military pressure and regional nervousness. In the days before and after the meeting U.S. forces deployed additional carrier strike assets to the Middle East, and Western media reported a high tempo of American military movements. Iranian media, meanwhile, highlighted the unveiling of a new ballistic missile and warned that deterrence was not for sale. The presence in Muscat of the U.S. Central Command chief, Admiral Cooper, reported by the Wall Street Journal, reinforced perceptions that diplomacy and the threat of force are being pursued in parallel.
Regional states and international capitals worked behind the scenes to push the two sides into the room. Oman facilitated the talks and said it hopes to host further rounds at an appropriate time; Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others have been active in shuttling messages and dampening incentives for a wider Gulf war. Moscow and Beijing publicly welcomed the contacts and urged de‑escalation, offering diplomatic cover for any constructive outcome.
Domestic pressures on both capitals complicate the diplomacy. In Tehran, memories of last year’s strikes and a fragile economy—exacerbated by U.S. financial measures that, according to U.S. testimony cited in regional reporting, contributed to a dollar shortage—have sown public unease and made leaders wary of concessions. In Washington, the political calculus of a U.S. president who faces sensitive domestic politics and an electorate weary of open‑ended wars limits appetite for a prolonged military campaign and also constrains what negotiators can promise at the table.
Israel has signalled it will prepare for another option if diplomacy falters. Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that they may strike to prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout and reportedly briefed domestic security bodies that a large‑scale assault could be imminent. Such statements raise the prospect of unilateral action that could draw the United States deeper into conflict despite parallel diplomatic efforts.
The format in Muscat—indirect talks through Oman—was designed to lower political risk and provide space for exploratory offers, but it also slows communication and leaves room for miscalculation. Both sides appear to want to avoid a full‑blown war, yet neither trusts the other enough to accept comprehensive concessions. The immediate practical value of Muscat is therefore procedural: it clears the air, clarifies red lines and signals whether a path exists for confidence‑building measures that might prevent escalation.
What happens next will determine whether Muscat is remembered as the start of cautious rapprochement or a brief pause before renewed hostilities. Further rounds of mediated exchanges seem likely, but any lasting agreement will require bridging the gap over Iran’s missile programme and regional posture—issues Tehran deems existential and Washington insists are integral to any durable settlement. In the short term, diplomacy has lowered but not removed the risk of miscalculation, while regional and domestic politics will continue to constrain negotiators on both sides.