Indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran in Oman concluded on Friday without either side making significant concessions, according to people familiar with the discussions cited by The Wall Street Journal.
The talks, mediated by Omani diplomats, involved alternating discussions rather than direct face-to-face meetings. Neither delegation shifted from its opening position during the session, leaving the outcome largely unchanged from pre-meeting expectations, which regional officials and analysts had already described as low.
The discussions marked the resumption of indirect nuclear diplomacy after weeks of escalating tensions. These tensions had intensified following statements from US President Donald Trump threatening military action against Iran if Tehran did not alter its nuclear posture and regional behavior.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the talks as a “good start,” suggesting that continued dialogue remains possible if the prevailing atmosphere of mutual distrust can be addressed. He confirmed that both sides agreed to keep the process alive and that the delegations could reconvene in Muscat at a later date.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, whose country has long served as a trusted intermediary between Washington and Tehran, characterized the discussions as “very serious.” He said the exchanges helped clarify each side’s positions and identify potential areas for future progress, even if no immediate breakthroughs occurred.
The talks focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program, including its enrichment activities, stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium, and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United States has maintained its position that Iran must return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018—or accept a new, more stringent agreement. Iran, in turn, has insisted on the lifting of all US sanctions imposed since the withdrawal before it reverses its own post-2018 nuclear advances.
Expectations for the Oman meeting were tempered from the outset. Analysts noted that the indirect format, while useful for maintaining communication, limits the scope for real-time compromise. The absence of direct contact and the deep mistrust between the two sides—exacerbated by years of sanctions, proxy conflicts, and military incidents—further constrained the prospects for immediate progress.
The resumption of talks nonetheless represents a modest diplomatic channel at a time when the region remains volatile. Heightened rhetoric from Washington, including President Trump’s recent warnings of military options, had raised fears of escalation. At the same time, Iran has continued to expand its nuclear activities, with the IAEA reporting that Tehran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity—close to weapons-grade—has grown significantly.
Oman’s role as facilitator has been widely acknowledged. The Sultanate has hosted multiple rounds of US-Iran talks since the early 2010s, including the back-channel discussions that laid the groundwork for the original JCPOA. Muscat’s neutral stance and close relations with both capitals have made it an effective go-between.
While Friday’s meeting did not produce tangible breakthroughs, both sides signaled openness to further rounds. Iranian officials emphasized that dialogue could continue if the United States demonstrates seriousness about addressing Tehran’s concerns—chiefly the removal of sanctions. US officials have not yet issued a formal readout, but sources indicated that Washington views the talks as a necessary step to test Iran’s intentions without conceding ground prematurely.
The outcome leaves the broader diplomatic effort in a holding pattern. Regional stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel, have watched the process closely. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, speaking in Ljubljana on the same day, expressed hope that diplomacy between the US and Iran could help reduce regional tensions, though he did not comment directly on the Oman talks’ results.
As the next steps remain unclear, the indirect channel through Oman provides a limited but ongoing line of communication between two adversaries whose confrontation carries significant risks for the Middle East and global energy markets. Whether the talks can evolve into substantive negotiations—or stall amid continued deadlock—will likely depend on developments in the coming weeks, including any shifts in US policy or Iranian nuclear activity.
