The United States and Iran meet in Oman amid the threat of regional escalation
Trump sends Witkoff and adds Kushner to the dialogue with Abbas Araqchi, while Washington and Iran clash over the agenda and the outcome could range from a ‘limited thaw’ to a new crisis in the Middle East
- Direct talks in Muscat, Oman
- Prior tension and dispute over the agenda
- Differences in approach between Washington and Tehran
- Outcome scenarios: from limited thaw to blockade
- Regional impact and international monitoring
Direct talks in Muscat, Oman
The United States and Iran will hold direct talks this Friday in Muscat, Oman, amid tension and mistrust. On the US side, Steve Witkoff, the White House special envoy for the Middle East, is expected to participate, joined by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a politically influential figure in previous regional negotiations.
Iran will be represented by its Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchi, with the direct backing of President Masoud Pezeshkian and under the watchful supervision of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Oman, a traditionally discreet but key player in contacts between Washington and Tehran, will act as mediator.
Prior tension and dispute over the agenda
The mere fact that the meeting is taking place is significant. For days, disagreement over the venue, first Istanbul, then Muscat, and, above all, over the content of the agenda, cast doubt on the meeting and fuelled the feeling that the United States might opt for a more coercive approach.
Trump did not help to ease the tension when he declared that Khamenei ‘should be very concerned’, a phrase that was interpreted in Tehran as a direct warning, although the US president also insisted that ‘they are negotiating with us’, leaving the door open to an understanding.
Differences in approach between Washington and Tehran
Iran is coming to Oman with a clear line based exclusively on the permanence of its nuclear programme. Araqchi has reiterated that any attempt to introduce the ballistic missile programme or Iranian support for armed actors in the region would cross a red line. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly stated that its nuclear programme is solely civilian and does not have military purposes or the objective of achieving a nuclear bomb.
In Washington, however, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that the United States does not consider an agreement limited to the nuclear sphere to be sufficient. For the White House, any understanding that leaves out Iran's missile programme, its regional influence and the internal situation of the country would, at best, be temporary and vulnerable.
This difference in approach has conditioned the Muscat talks from the outset and opens up two paths: a technical and limited agreement to reduce immediate tensions or a new blockade that returns the relationship to the realm of pressure and threats.
Military presence and risks of escalation
The United States has increased its military presence in the Middle East by sending aircraft carriers, fighter jets and thousands of troops. Recent events, such as the incident involving an Iranian drone near an aircraft carrier and the naval encounters in the Strait of Hormuz, make it clear how easy it could be to reach open conflict. The situation is delicate and any mistake could have serious consequences.
Likewise, the Tehran government fears that an external attack could reignite internal protests, following more than 40 days of repression and protests in the country that have left thousands dead and dozens detained across the country, putting the regime's control in a difficult position.
Outcome scenarios: from limited thaw to blockade
In this scenario, one of the hypotheses being considered by diplomats and analysts is that of a minimal agreement that would include verifiable limitations on uranium enrichment in exchange for partial relief from sanctions. This would be a modest outcome, but sufficient to reduce tensions in the short term and give Iran some economic breathing space, as well as allowing Trump to present it as a negotiating success.
Another possibility is that the talks will serve only to buy time, without substantial progress, while both sides measure their strength and gauge the real cost of an escalation.
Regional impact and international monitoring
The impact of these negotiations extends far beyond Washington and Tehran. Israel views with concern any agreement it considers insufficient to curb Iran's eventual nuclear capability and reserves the option to act on its own if it perceives an existential threat.
The Gulf countries, on the other hand, are discreetly pushing for diplomacy to move forward, pointing out that open war would have a major impact on energy security and their own economies. It is no coincidence that, following confirmation of the meeting in Oman, oil and gold prices have fallen, reflecting a slight reduction in immediate risk.
Russia and China and the process
Russia and China are also closely monitoring the process. Moscow has warned against the use of force and advocates diplomacy, while Beijing sees the stability of the Gulf as a direct strategic interest. For both, a failure of dialogue would reinforce global volatility at a time already marked by multiple fronts of tension.
Thus, the Muscat talks appear to be an uncertain turning point. If they succeed, they could usher in a phase of controlled de-escalation, albeit limited and fragile. If they fail, the risk is not only the collapse of nuclear diplomacy, but a chain of decisions that could push the region towards a wider conflict. In Oman, the talks will not only focus on centrifuges and enrichment levels, but also the delicate balance in the Middle East in the coming months.