Iran and the United States concluded a round of indirect talks in Muscat on Feb. 6, with Tehran’s lead negotiator calling the sessions a promising start and both sides agreeing to continue discussions at a later date. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said the atmosphere was good and that the two delegations had conducted “long, tightly focused” conversations, but he reiterated a hard red line: Tehran will not accept a precondition that it cease all uranium enrichment.
The negotiations, hosted by Oman, were staged as shuttling, indirect talks: Iran’s delegation, led by Araghchi, met with Omani Foreign Minister Badr to outline positions and concerns, after which U.S. special envoy Witkoff and presidential adviser Jared Kushner held separate meetings with Badr. U.S. Central Command commander Cooper was reportedly part of the American team, underscoring Washington’s blending of diplomatic and military levies in the approach.
Both sides confined the agenda to the nuclear file; Iran made clear it would not negotiate other issues with the United States. Tehran also insisted that any dialogue proceed without threats or coercion. Iranian spokespeople characterized the session as “positive,” but described the pause in talks as temporary and said delegations might return to their capitals for consultations before resuming.
Washington signalled restrained optimism but kept public pressure intact. White House spokesman Levitt told reporters the administration was pursuing diplomacy while retaining ‘‘many options’’ beyond talks. The White House has repeatedly framed its goal as the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capacity, a position President Trump has frequently emphasized.
The Muscat meetings are notable less for concrete concessions than for the fact they happened at all. Oman’s role as intermediary and the participation of high-profile U.S. political and military figures show both sides are experimenting with a calibrated mix of diplomacy and deterrence: talks on paper, pressure on the ground.
This session must be read against the longer arc of Iran’s post‑JCPOA trajectory. Years of sanctions have pushed Tehran to rebuild enrichment infrastructure and to develop domestic nuclear expertise, narrowing the time before a breakout capability would be attainable. For the United States and its regional partners, the central concern is slowing or reversing that momentum without triggering a wider confrontation.
The inclusion of a senior U.S. military commander alongside political envoys is especially telling: it signals Washington’s intent to keep kinetic options visible while negotiating, a posture designed to reassure allies and to apply leverage on Tehran. For Iran, insisting on its right to enrich—while demanding an end to threats and coercion—positions it to seek sanctions relief without ceding the technical abilities that underpin regime prestige and strategic deterrence.
The talks’ future will turn on decisions in Tehran and Washington. If leaders in both capitals permit negotiators to continue, a limited framework deal could emerge that exchanges curbs on enrichment for phased sanctions relief. But domestic politics, regional mistrust and the tight timelines created by Iran’s nuclear advances mean any progress will be tentative and reversible. Observers should watch the capitals’ responses to the Muscat dispatches, shifts in military posturing across the region, and whether Oman convenes another round that moves beyond goodwill into enforceable commitments.