Indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States (US) are due to begin in Muscat after weeks of delays, reversals and near-collapse. The fact that the talks are happening at all is significant, even though neither side expects a major breakthrough. Repeated military incidents, disputes over venue, and sharp disagreements over the agenda repeatedly derailed the process, with Washington at one stage appearing to abandon it altogether. Each time, talks were revived not out of optimism, but because escalation was seen as the more dangerous alternative.
At the heart of the tension lies a fundamental disagreement over scope. Iran agreed to engage strictly on nuclear matters, maintaining that it does not seek nuclear weapons. The US, however, attempted to broaden discussions to include Iran’s missile programme, regional alliances and domestic governance. Tehran viewed this as confirmation that diplomacy was being used to extract incremental concessions rather than resolve a defined issue, and responded by drawing firm red lines. Talks would be indirect, held only in Oman, and confined to the nuclear file.
Washington’s pushback reflected its belief that Iran had been weakened by war, economic strain and the erosion of its regional influence. Yet this assessment has been challenged. The recent regional conflict demonstrated that military action could impose costs on Iran but not neutralise it, while the risk of wider instability alarmed Gulf states, who quietly pressed for restraint.
Israel remains a key driver of confrontation, encouraging a tougher American posture and contributing to the gradual expansion of US demands. Iran, for its part, remains deeply sceptical of shifting US positions, fearing that concessions would only invite further pressure. Missiles and regional alliances are seen in Tehran as core elements of deterrence, not bargaining chips.
Ultimately, both sides appear to be using diplomacy as a means of managing risk rather than resolving decades-old hostility. Limited confidence-building steps have reduced immediate tensions, but expectations remain deliberately low. The talks may prevent miscalculation, yet the ideological and geopolitical roots of the rivalry ensure that reconciliation remains out of reach.
