Diplomats from Washington and Tehran are due to meet in Muscat on 6 February for talks framed as negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, but the two sides are already clashing over the agenda. Tehran says the discussion should be confined to nuclear issues, while U.S. officials have signalled they expect the conversation to address Iran’s ballistic‑missile programme as well — a demand Tehran rejects as off limits.
Iran’s foreign minister announced the Muscat meeting on social media and Iranian officials have stressed that missile issues are “not on the table.” Tehran says it is willing to show flexibility on uranium enrichment provided that enrichment is for peaceful uses and not for weapons, and warns that insisting on non‑nuclear topics could jeopardise the talks.
The dispute over scope is not abstract: recent military developments have hardened Iran’s negotiating posture. Iran’s chief of general staff inspected an underground missile base and declared a shift from a defensive to an offensive military doctrine after the June 2025 confrontation with Israel, during which the United States carried out strikes on Iranian facilities and Iran retaliated with attacks on U.S. forces in the region.
How the talks are framed will determine what a successful outcome could look like. A narrowly focused, technical deal limited to enrichment levels, inspection access and stockpile caps would be easier to define and verify; folding in ballistic missiles and regional behaviour turns the negotiation into a much broader political bargaining process involving deterrence, conventional capabilities and the security concerns of Israel and Gulf states.
The immediate diplomatic test is therefore whether the two sides accept parallel tracks — a nuclear deal first with separate discussions on missiles and regional security later — or insist on a single package. If Iran’s missile programme remains untouchable, the United States and its regional partners may find any nuclear accord insufficient to address their security worries, increasing the risk of a breakdown and further military escalation.