President Donald Trump warned in an NBC interview that the United States would act militarily if Iran attempts to reconstitute its nuclear programme at new, undisclosed sites, urging Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to “be very careful.” Trump said U.S. intelligence indicated Tehran was exploring ways to rebuild parts of its nuclear capability elsewhere, and argued that regional Arab states lack the means to stop such a program themselves.
Diplomacy appeared to move forward despite the rhetoric: Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri (Araghchi in some dispatches) confirmed that nuclear talks with the United States were scheduled for Feb. 6 in Muscat, Oman, a location long used for quiet, third‑party diplomacy. The White House also confirmed the meeting, even as U.S. officials signalled a tougher, broader negotiating agenda and American forces were repositioned in the region amid a surge of military warnings.
Washington and Tehran already differ sharply over what those talks should cover. U.S. officials want to press beyond the narrow question of Tehran’s nuclear activities to include Iran’s ballistic‑missile programme, its financing of armed groups across the Middle East, and human‑rights issues. Iran insists the talks should be strictly limited to its nuclear programme and the lifting of sanctions — its stated “first demand.” That mismatch on scope is as consequential as any technical dispute over enrichment or verification.
Regional actors appear to have played a decisive role in pushing the two sides to the table. Axios reports that leaders from at least nine Middle Eastern countries urged the White House in recent days not to cancel the Muscat talks, arguing that shunting diplomacy aside would increase the risk of open conflict and economic disruption. U.S. officials framed their agreement to meet as a concession to these allies and a preference to keep diplomatic options open.
The coming negotiations are set against a strained recent history: the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the reimposition of sanctions, and years of tit‑for‑tat covert and proxy hostilities have eroded trust and narrowed diplomatic space. A U.S. threat of military action raises the stakes: it could compel Iran to harden its position, encourage regional partners to press for a hard line, or — in the worst case — trigger miscalculation that leads to armed confrontation.
For now, Muscat offers a low‑profile venue to test whether narrower, technically focused bargaining can survive amid high political drama. The immediate question is whether either side will accept a staged approach — starting with nuclear constraints and sanctions relief while deferring thornier regional and missile issues — or whether Washington’s insistence on a comprehensive agenda will scuttle the meeting before it begins.