With the growing threat of an American strike, diplomatic efforts to revive negotiations with Iran have gathered momentum. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has reportedly ordered the resumption of nuclear negotiations, with Tehran confirming that it is examining a proposed “framework” for talks.
Senior officials indicate that US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet in Turkey on February 6 to explore a deal aimed at averting what officials on both sides describe as an increasingly imminent US military attack. In a significant expansion of Washington’s diplomatic presence, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is also expected to attend, underlining the political weight attached to the talks.
The negotiations are being shaped by an unusually broad coalition of regional stakeholders. Foreign ministers from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates have been invited to participate, reflecting a rare convergence among Middle Eastern powers around the need to de-escalate. These countries have been acting as intermediaries for weeks, exchanging messages between Washington and Tehran and working to finalise the structure and sequencing of the diplomatic process.
The urgency of the talks is driven by a volatile security environment. President Donald Trump has deployed what he has described as a “massive armada” to the Arabian Sea, including aircraft carriers, fighter jets and long-range strike capabilities, effectively surrounding Iran. While Trump initially framed the deployment as a warning aimed at protecting Iranian protesters, his public messaging has since shifted decisively towards demanding the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
Historical mistrust looms large over the impending negotiations. Previous talks hosted by Oman collapsed in June, when Israeli and US forces launched air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites just as negotiations were due to begin. Iranian officials have since cited that episode as evidence of American bad faith, and Tehran has insisted on guarantees that no military action will be taken while talks are underway.
Deep divisions remain over the scope and substance of any potential agreement. The Trump administration is pursuing what officials privately describe as a maximalist agenda. Washington is demanding that Iran halt all uranium enrichment, transfer its existing stockpiles of near-weapons-grade material to a third country, roll back its ballistic missile programme and end support for allied armed groups across the region. Trump has repeatedly stated that while he is open to a deal, “bad things would happen” if diplomacy fails.
Tehran, however, maintains that its nuclear programme is purely civilian and has long treated both its missile capabilities and its regional alliances as non-negotiable. However, analysts suggest that the extensive damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure during the June strikes may have altered Tehran’s calculations. Rather than formally surrendering its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran may be prepared to codify a “suspension” of enrichment, effectively recognising the current reality on the ground without conceding the principle. Iranian officials have firmly rejected proposals to transfer uranium stockpiles abroad but have signalled openness to what they describe as “fair and equitable” arrangements that guarantee Iran will not produce nuclear weapons.
Qatar and Oman have drafted a broad proposal modelled on recent conflict-resolution frameworks applied to Gaza and Ukraine. The draft combines steps on uranium enrichment with phased economic incentives and security assurances. Regional diplomats are also attempting to divide the negotiations into two tracks: an initial, narrowly focused nuclear track designed to secure Iranian buy-in, followed by a second phase addressing Washington’s broader concerns over missiles and regional security.
The involvement of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey reflects a shared fear that a US strike on Iran would destabilise the entire Middle East, triggering wider conflict and generating refugee flows that would reverberate across the region. This rare alignment of interests has produced what regional officials describe as an “unprecedented harmony”, placing pressure on both Washington and Tehran to engage seriously.
While Araghchi has expressed confidence that an agreement is achievable if talks are conducted on the basis of mutual respect, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has struck a defiant tone, warning that any American attack would ignite a “regional war”. Yet behind the scenes, Iran’s severe economic distress, driven by sanctions, inflation and currency collapse, is widely seen as a powerful incentive to pursue sanctions relief through diplomacy. As the framework for talks is finalised, and despite the White House stopping short of formally confirming the meeting schedule, Trump has acknowledged that serious discussions are underway, underscoring the high stakes surrounding the Turkey talks.