Iran–U.S. Negotiations Restart: Cautious Progress, Maximum Pressure, and Uncertain Prospects
Negotiations between Iran and the United States concluded in Muscat, Oman, with both sides agreeing to continue the dialogue.
Negotiations between Iran and the United States concluded in Muscat, Oman, with both sides agreeing to continue the dialogue, even as Washington escalated pressure within hours by imposing new oil-related sanctions. The talks mark the first formal diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Washington since negotiations were suspended last summer following a brief but intense regional conflict, and they took place amid heightened military tensions, political mistrust, and sharply divided reactions inside Iran.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei announced that the Muscat talks ended with a mutual understanding to continue negotiations. He said both sides presented their positions and demands and agreed that decisions on the next round would be made after consultations in Tehran and Washington, confirming that the talks have entered a consultative phase rather than producing immediate outcomes.
Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi described the discussions as “very serious and useful,” stating that they helped clarify the perspectives of both parties and identify potential areas for progress. He emphasized that the results would be carefully reviewed in both capitals before deciding when and how to reconvene, reiterating Muscat’s commitment to continuing its mediating role.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also struck a cautiously positive tone, calling the negotiations “a good start.” He described the talks as “long and intensive,” involving multiple meetings in which the views of Iran and the opposing side were fully exchanged, and stressed that continuation depends on internal consultations and further coordination with Oman regarding the timing, location, and format of future negotiations.
While Iranian and Omani officials publicly described the talks as indirect, new reporting indicates that the negotiations were at least partially direct. According to Barak Ravid of Axios, Trump advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met directly with Abbas Araghchi during the Muscat talks, citing two sources briefed on the issue. Axios reported that the U.S. and Iran plan to continue nuclear talks following this first round, suggesting a more flexible diplomatic format than publicly acknowledged.
According to Oman’s Foreign Ministry, Al Busaidi held separate consultations with the Iranian delegation led by Araghchi and the American delegation headed by Witkoff, with the participation of Kushner. The statement said the discussions focused on laying the groundwork for resuming diplomatic and technical negotiations and underscored their importance for sustainable regional security and stability, while reaffirming Oman’s role in bridging differences between the two sides.
Iran has reiterated that it remains willing to negotiate over its nuclear program, while firmly insisting that its missile capabilities are not subject to negotiation. Iranian officials have warned that Tehran will resist “excessive demands” from Washington. At the same time, international reporting and U.S. political messaging indicate that Washington continues to seek a broader scope for negotiations, including missile and regional issues—an approach Iran has consistently rejected.
The diplomatic engagement unfolded alongside explicit military signaling. As the U.S. delegation arrived in Muscat, American naval forces were reported to be operating near Iran’s borders. Multiple outlets cited U.S. officials as saying that Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, was present as part of the American team—an unusual step in high-level diplomacy that observers widely interpret as a reminder that military options remain on the table if talks fail.
At the same time, Iranian state media highlighted the operational deployment of the Khorramshahr-4 long-range ballistic missile in underground missile bases operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although information about the missile had been released previously, its renewed prominence during the talks was widely seen as a deterrent signal, reinforcing Iran’s position that its missile program is non-negotiable.
Within hours of the talks’ conclusion, the United States announced new sanctions targeting 15 entities and 14 oil tankers linked to what Washington described as illegal trade in Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and petrochemicals. U.S. officials said the vessels were part of Iran’s “shadow fleet,” used to evade sanctions. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the measures reflect President Donald Trump’s commitment under a “maximum pressure” campaign to reduce Iran’s oil exports and related revenues. The timing of the sanctions—immediately after talks framed as constructive—underscored the dual-track nature of U.S. policy: diplomacy pursued alongside intensified economic coercion.
International reactions reflected broader geopolitical alignments. China publicly stated its support for Iran, saying it backs Tehran in defending its sovereignty and legitimate interests and opposes “unilateral bullying.” Russia, meanwhile, warned that relations between Iran and the United States are in an “explosive” state, cautioning that miscalculations could destabilize the entire Middle East, while signaling readiness to assist if an agreement is eventually reached.
Inside Iran, reactions revealed a deeply divided political landscape. Several members of parliament expressed strong skepticism, arguing that past experience shows the United States cannot be trusted and that negotiations conducted under pressure are unlikely to succeed. Esmail Kosari said bluntly that the talks would not yield results, accusing Washington of attempting to impose unacceptable demands, particularly on Iran’s missile program. Others, including Qasem Ravanbakhsh, described Washington’s return to the negotiating table under an indirect, nuclear-focused format as a diplomatic success for Iran, arguing that sincere engagement could eventually produce outcomes.
Beyond parliament, former Tehran mayor Gholamhossein Karbaschi urged Iran’s leadership to bring the long-running nuclear standoff to an end, arguing that prolonged sanctions have imposed severe economic and social costs and that public demand is increasingly focused on relief from sustained pressure. Legal analyst Kambiz Norouzi criticized domestic media restrictions, warning that weakened internal media capacity has left public opinion heavily influenced by external narratives at a moment of high national sensitivity.
Taken together, the Muscat talks represent a significant procedural development: the reopening of a structured diplomatic channel, now revealed to include limited direct engagement, through which Tehran and Washington can clarify positions and test whether negotiations are viable. At the same time, the immediate imposition of new sanctions, continued military signaling, and unresolved disagreements over scope highlight the fragility of the process.
These negotiations matter because they restore a channel for dialogue at a moment of elevated regional risk, but it remains far too early to predict their outcome. Whether this track evolves into sustained diplomacy, settles into prolonged stalemate, or collapses under political and security pressures will depend on decisions taken in the coming days and weeks in Tehran and Washington—decisions with significant implications for regional stability and global security.