The United States and Iran concluded a round of indirect negotiations in Muscat yesterday, marking their first diplomatic engagement since a brief but intense conflict in June. Iranian officials described the talks as a “good start” held in a “good atmosphere”, but the discussions unfolded against a volatile backdrop that underscored just how fragile the process remains. A major American military buildup in the region, deepening domestic unrest in Iran and an intensifying US economic pressure campaign all loomed over the diplomatic effort.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
The negotiations were conducted indirectly, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi shuttling between the Iranian and American delegations, who were stationed in separate areas of a palace near Muscat’s international airport. The Iranian side was led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, while the US delegation included Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Oman’s role as a trusted intermediary once again highlighted its importance as one of the few regional actors taken into confidence by both Washington and Tehran.
Washington also made a pointed effort to signal the military power underpinning its diplomacy. The US delegation included Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, who appeared in dress uniform. His presence was widely interpreted as a deliberate reminder to Tehran of the scale of American forces positioned in and around the Gulf. Both sides will now have further discussions with their respective political leadership and are expected to return for further talks. Araghchi said the meeting had helped clarify each side’s positions and identify possible areas for progress, while stressing that overcoming deep-seated mistrust would be difficult.
Diplomacy under duress
The talks took place under the shadow of renewed conflict. They followed what Iranian officials have described as a “12-day Iran-Israel war” in June 2025, during which Israel struck Iranian nuclear and military facilities and the US bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Since then, tensions have remained critically high. Trump recently declared that an “armada” was moving towards the region “just in case”, and the US military has publicised images of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group operating in the Arabian Sea.
The immediate run-up to the negotiations was marked by incidents that underscored how easily the situation could spiral. Days before the meeting, US forces shot down an Iranian drone that approached the USS Abraham Lincoln. Around the same time, Iran attempted to intercept a US-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran has warned that it possesses thousands of missiles and drones capable of targeting American assets and has threatened to retaliate against US allies if attacked again. Iranian officials have said any US strike would provoke an “unprecedented” response, potentially including attacks on Tel Aviv and disruption of global oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Beyond Iran’s nuclear programme?
At the heart of the talks lies a fundamental disagreement over their scope. Iran has insisted that negotiations be strictly limited to its nuclear programme and has refused to discuss its ballistic missile capabilities, its regional network of allied armed groups or its domestic human rights record. The US has pushed for a broader framework that would address Iran’s missile programme, its support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and its “treatment of their own people”.
also read
The emphasis on human rights reflects the severe domestic instability currently shaking Iran. The country has been gripped by nationwide anti-government protests driven by a collapsing economy and runaway inflation. Human rights organisations estimate that the security forces’ crackdown has resulted in at least 6,941 deaths and more than 50,000 arrests. Trump has sought to leverage this unrest, threatening military action if Tehran uses lethal force against demonstrators and warning Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he “should be very worried”. Trump has publicly encouraged protesters, writing on social media that “help is on the way”.
The core dispute, however, remains Iran’s nuclear programme. Before the June conflict, Iran was enriching uranium to 60 per cent purity, a short technical step from weapons-grade material. Tehran has demanded sweeping sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its programme, while the US and its allies have rejected any arrangement that allows Iran to continue enrichment. Regional mediators from Egypt, Turkey and Qatar are reported to have proposed a compromise under which Iran would halt enrichment for three years and ship its stockpile abroad, but Tehran has historically resisted such measures, viewing them as infringements on its sovereignty. Several reports indicated that Iran rejected the demand to halt uranium enrichment. A diplomat from the region who was briefed by Tehran told media that it would consider the “level and purity” of enrichment or a regional consortium.
US announces new sanctions on Iran
Despite the diplomatic engagement in Oman, Washington moved quickly to tighten economic pressure. Shortly after the talks concluded, the US Treasury and State Department announced new sanctions targeting Iran’s so-called shadow fleet, designating 14 vessels and a number of trading firms accused of illegally transporting Iranian oil. At the same time, Trump signed an executive order paving the way for a 25 per cent tariff on goods from any country that purchases Iranian oil, a move aimed at cutting off what remains of Tehran’s economic lifelines.
Despite the talks, the situation remains precarious. While regional powers who want to avoid another conflict in the region continue to press for peace, the US is going ahead with economic and military coercion and Iran is reluctant to back off. As a result, the prospects for a comprehensive agreement appear uncertain. As Araghchi acknowledged, the “mistrust that has developed is a serious challenge”, and for now the threat of war continues to hang over a fragile diplomatic process.
