U.S.-Iran Oman Security Dialogue: Nuclear Negotiations and Regional Risks Under Military Deterrence

On February 6, 2026, at a palace on the outskirts of Muscat, the capital of Oman, used for hosting state guests, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, son-in-law of U.S. President Donald Trump, held an eight-hour indirect meeting facilitated by shuttle diplomacy from Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi. This marked the first official contact between the two sides since the United States participated in Israel's 12-day airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025. Notably different from previous engagements, U.S. Central Command Commander Admiral Brad Cooper appeared at the negotiation site in full military dress uniform, while the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group under his command was cruising in the Arabian Sea, just a stone's throw away from the Iranian coast. This diplomatic engagement, resumed under intense military pressure, not only represents a continuation of unresolved issues from the 2025 conflict but may also become a critical turning point determining the security landscape of the Persian Gulf for years to come.

Core disagreements at the negotiation table and the military backdrop.

The agenda for this meeting has been contentious from the outset. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi's clear statement to Iran's state television after the meeting, Iran's position is that our negotiations are limited to nuclear issues and we will not discuss any other topics with the Americans. This directly draws a line against the demands of the United States. Before the talks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly stated that the negotiations must cover Iran's ballistic missile program, support for regional armed groups, and its domestic human rights situation. This fundamental divergence in agendas led to widespread external perception of the talks as a low-expectation engagement even before they began.

The composition of the U.S. negotiation team itself sends a strong signal of gunboat diplomacy. In addition to career diplomat Witkoff and Kushner, who holds a special political status, the attendance of General Cooper, commander of the U.S. Central Command, is an unprecedented arrangement. The Central Command oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, and parts of South Asia. The presence of its commander at the diplomatic negotiation table directly places military deterrence on the agenda. On the same day as the talks, the U.S. military posted photos on social media platform X of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group conducting flight operations in the Arabian Sea, accompanied by the caption "Strength fosters peace." This strike group arrived in the Middle East at the end of January as a response to President Trump's earlier threat of military action following Iran's suppression of domestic protests. Just days before the talks, U.S. forces shot down an Iranian drone near the Lincoln, while Iran attempted to intercept a U.S.-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's response was equally tough and specific. The day after the talks, General Abdolrahim Mousavi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, warned that any adventure against Iran would have serious consequences and explicitly threatened that Iran would strike U.S. military bases in the Middle East, which would not be considered an attack on the countries hosting those bases. During the talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi insisted that any dialogue must be preceded by an end to threats and pressure. This dynamic of talking while fighting has kept the dialogue in the Omani palace shrouded by the dark clouds of war looming over the Persian Gulf.

Regional and National Anxieties and Oman's Room for Mediation

The tension in this bilateral game between the United States and Iran has long spilled beyond the borders of the two countries, casting a suffocating sense of anxiety over the entire Gulf region. According to a report by Finland’s *Helsingin Sanomat*, at least nine Middle Eastern countries have lobbied the White House to insist on this diplomatic engagement. A senior Saudi official, who spoke anonymously to AFP, frankly stated: "We informed Washington that attacking Iran would open the door to serious consequences." This concern is grounded in solid geopolitical and economic foundations: approximately 20% of global oil consumption passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Should the strait be closed due to conflict, it would be catastrophic for the global economy and for the economies of Gulf Arab states, which rely heavily on crude oil exports.

In this context, the Sultanate of Oman once again played a crucial mediating role. This country, located at the southeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula and guarding the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, has long adhered to a neutral foreign policy, maintaining relatively smooth communication channels with both Iran and the United States. The talks were held at a palace near Muscat International Airport, the same venue where multiple U.S.-Iran meetings took place in 2025. In a post-meeting statement, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi cautiously noted that the discussions helped clarify the perspectives of Iran and the United States and identified areas where progress might be possible. The goal, he emphasized, was to create the necessary conditions for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations, rather than reaching an immediate agreement.

The anxiety in the region and among nations partly stems from the memory of the June 2025 war. At that time, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities with U.S. support, and the United States subsequently joined in, focusing on three key nuclear targets, including the underground Fordow nuclear facility. President Trump declared at the time that Iran's nuclear program had been completely and utterly destroyed. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency later reported that Iran remained the only country in the world to enrich uranium to 60% purity—just one step away from weapons-grade 90%—without possessing nuclear weapons. After the war, Iran refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the bombed sites, raising deep concerns among nuclear non-proliferation experts. Although the war lasted only 12 days, the risk of escalation left the entire region deeply unsettled.

Economic sanctions, domestic political situation, and bargaining chips.

In addition to military confrontation, economic strangulation and domestic political situations are the other two major variables affecting the negotiation positions of both sides. Shortly after the Muscat talks concluded, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the State Department announced a new round of sanctions targeting Iran's energy sector, aimed at 14 shadow fleet tankers used to evade sanctions, 15 trading companies, and 2 corporate executives. The U.S. State Department stated that these sanctions are measures against the Iranian regime's prioritization of destabilizing actions over the safety of its own citizens. Over the past month, the United States has sanctioned multiple officials involved in suppressing protests, including Iran's Minister of Interior and the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The impact of sanctions on Iran's economy is substantial. According to The Guardian, since the attack in June 2025, the Iranian rial has depreciated by half against the U.S. dollar, with food inflation approaching or even exceeding 100%. The sharp decline in living standards was one of the triggers for the large-scale protests that erupted at the end of December 2025. The Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported that over 6,941 people have been killed and nearly 51,000 arrested in the government crackdown, with the actual figures likely higher. The Iranian regime is facing unprecedented internal and external pressures.

However, this pressure has not simply translated into Iran making concessions at the negotiation table. On the contrary, Tehran has made the lifting of sanctions its core demand for returning to the framework of the nuclear agreement. Iran insists that its right to conduct uranium enrichment on its own soil, as stipulated by the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), is non-negotiable. A potential compromise has emerged: Iran might agree to suspend its uranium enrichment program for a fixed number of years, while a consortium of regional countries carries out the enrichment. This approach would both satisfy Iran's insistence on its right to peaceful nuclear energy and alleviate external concerns about its nuclear weapons ambitions. Al Jazeera once reported that diplomats from Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar had proposed a similar plan to Iran, which involved Iran halting enrichment for three years, shipping out its highly enriched uranium, and pledging not to be the first to use ballistic missiles. Russia had expressed willingness to receive these uranium materials, but Iran rejected the proposal at the time.

Future Path: Limited Window and Significant Risks

The Muscat talks did not yield a breakthrough agreement, but initiated a fragile process. Both sides agreed to consult with their respective capitals on the next steps. President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that the talks were very good and revealed that another meeting might take place early next week. However, he also warned: if they do not reach an agreement, the consequences will be very severe. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi described this contact as a good start and acknowledged that restarting the dialogue process is not simple after experiencing war, with the deep-seated distrust that has formed posing a serious challenge.

From a strategic perspective, both sides are currently at a point where they need to assess the costs and benefits of military options. The United States possesses the USS Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and additional fighter jets, theoretically giving it the military capability to launch an attack. However, analysts point out that the U.S. military and Israel had previously postponed an attack plan in late 2025, believing they were not fully prepared to withstand potential retaliation from Iran. Iran's retaliatory measures are clear and diverse, including targeting U.S. regional bases and attacking Israel, which could be enough to drag the entire Gulf region into war.

For the market, the talks themselves have already had an immediate impact. Following the news of the talks, Brent crude oil prices fell to $67.92 per barrel, and West Texas Intermediate crude fell to $63.62 per barrel, both experiencing a single-day drop of over 2%. UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo told Reuters: Oil prices are heavily influenced by tensions in the Middle East, and the market is closely watching the Oman negotiations. If the talks break down and lead to military conflict, a surge in oil prices will be inevitable; conversely, if the negotiations make progress, oil prices will further decline.

The dialogue held within the palace in Oman essentially seeks a non-military conclusion to the unfinished war of 2025. Both sides arrived at the negotiating table with guns and artillery, their words filled with warnings and threats, yet they ultimately sat down. This alone may be the most significant progress achievable under the current circumstances. However, the eye of the storm over the Persian Gulf has not dissipated; the diplomatic process is treading on thin ice, and any miscalculation or provocation could reignite the bloodshed and destruction of the past eight months. The Gulf nations hold their breath, global markets watch nervously, and how far this path opened in Muscat can extend will directly define the security landscape of the Middle East for the next decade.