Talks between the United States and Iran in Oman have marked a hesitant move in one of the most strained diplomatic relations on Earth. Former US President Donald Trump acknowledged discussions as “very good” and left the attention all over the Middle East and global markets.
The talks have taken place via the mediation of Oman, which had previously been used by the U.S. and Iran for quiet engagements. While details are still sketchy, Trump’s comments hint at the fact that dialogue has gone beyond explorative contact. Officials have downplayed the engagement by underscoring that the objective was not addressing regional stability and risk in its entirety, but rather a stained glass over the process, referring to it as an engagement organized to ensure regional stability and reduce risks.
Oman’s Quiet Role in US–Iran Diplomacy
Oman has played a consistent back role in U.S.-Iran diplomacy. Its neutral posture and its ties with both of the sides make it a trustworthy intermediary. The choice of Muscat goes in a sense a downstream context of favoring controlled, behind-digit diplomacy with less public these negotiations.
Iranian officials have admitted the talks but tended to avoid strong language. Tehran has made clear that any motion requires some mutual respect as well as concrete steps. The Iranian position is therefore still focused on sanctions relief and recognition of its regional role. The United States, meanwhile, keeps on vagueries of de-escalation and security assurances.
The talks occur at a sensitive time. Tensions in the Gulf and more recent conflicts with Iran-aligned groups along with pressure on global energy supplies has elevated the price of confrontation. Even low levels of dialogue have an effect of reducing risks of miscalculation, especially in strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz.
For Washington, engagement by way of Oman is a means of risk management without making public commitments. It also reassures regional partners that there are still diplomatic options open along with deterrence. Gulf states have received talks in silence thinking it is a stabilizing sign rather than a concession.
There is no indication of an agreement on a formal level at this stage. The U.S. officials have been emphatic that talks are issue specific and incremental. Any larger framework of that would demand sustained engagement and confidence building measures.
Still, the tone matters. Trump’s public characterisation of the talks as “very good” is a sign of political space for further contact. It further proposes a departure from pressure only tactics to limited diplomacy.
For the time being, the Oman channel is a pressure valve. Its success will be measured less by headlines, however, and is going to be more about whether it reduces escalation as well as keeping the dialogue alive in what is a volatile region.