Diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran are scheduled to resume in Muscat on 6 February, but the two sides are entering the room with sharply different views over what should be on the table. Tehran has publicly insisted the talks be confined to nuclear issues, while U.S. interlocutors have signalled that Iran’s ballistic‑missile programme must be part of any meaningful agreement. The immediate friction threatens to reduce the meeting to a technical exchange rather than a deal‑making encounter.
Iranian foreign minister Ahmad Alirezaghi announced the Muscat meeting on social media, and Iranian officials repeated that “the missile programme is not on the negotiating table.” Tehran frames its position as defending the sovereign right to peaceful nuclear technology and resisting what it sees as preconditions that would curtail its conventional deterrent. Iranian military leaders, meanwhile, have underscored recent upgrades to missile capabilities and framed doctrine in more offensive terms since last year’s clashes with Israel.
Washington’s demand to fold ballistic missiles into the discussions stems from a concern that a narrowly tailored nuclear deal could leave Iran’s delivery systems largely untouched, preserving its ability to threaten regional neighbours. U.S. officials and Western diplomats warn that constraining only uranium enrichment without addressing delivery systems would be an incomplete solution to proliferation risks and regional instability. For Tehran, however, restricting missiles — which it regards as central to deterrence against Israel and U.S. forces — is politically and militarily unacceptable.
The Muscat talks come against the backdrop of a violent escalation in 2025: Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, Iranian missile and drone reprisals against Israeli targets, U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and Iranian strikes on a U.S. base in Qatar. Those exchanges hardened positions on all sides and injected military leverage into the bargaining calculus. Iranian commanders have used that leverage rhetorically to argue that missile strength underwrites the country’s capacity to deter future attacks.
If both sides stick to their present red lines, the Muscat meeting risks being limited to procedural clarifications or confidence‑building measures rather than substantive concessions. That outcome would leave broader regional tensions unresolved, and it would reduce the chances of a comprehensive settlement that might include limits, verification measures and a timetable for phased sanctions relief. A truncated result could also increase the likelihood of further escalation by leaving Iran’s conventional forces and regional proxies outside of any diplomatic framework.
For international observers, Muscat will be telling less for immediate breakthroughs than for signals of flexibility or entrenchment. A willingness by either side to compromise on sequencing — for example, beginning with a narrow nuclear agreement while agreeing on a parallel diplomatic track addressing missiles — could produce a pathway forward. Conversely, if rhetoric hardens and each side seeks maximum leverage, the talks may harden the status quo and prolong the risk of miscalculation in an already volatile region.