Iran06 February, 20262 min read
United States and Iran Agree To Continue Indirect Nuclear Talks In Oman
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
U.S. and Iran conducted indirect talks in Oman focused on Tehran's nuclear program Both sides agreed to continue diplomatic talks, possibly within the coming days
8 outlets told this the same way.
Outlets did split on Iran Reviews US Negotiation Proposals As Pakistan And Qatar Mediate Strait Of Hormuz Dispute →
Muscat US-Iran talks
Oman-mediated indirect talks between the United States and Iran in Muscat concluded after roughly eight hours, with both sides agreeing to keep a diplomatic channel open and to consider further meetings, and officials described the development as a positive start to renewed engagement. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi (also spelled Arraqchi/Aragchi in some accounts) and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff led the session, which multiple outlets reported as the first formal U.S.–Iran engagement since reported strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last June, and Iranian and Omani officials framed the meeting as a cautious but constructive beginning. Iranian officials presented the talks as focused on the civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, while the United States described them as an opportunity to explore next steps after months of heightened tensions.
“Indirect, Oman-mediated talks between Iran and the US concluded after eight hours with a mutual agreement to keep a diplomatic channel open and the possibility of further meetings in the coming days, Iranian and Omani officials said.”
Scope of nuclear talks
Both sides welcomed continued diplomacy, but sources show a clear disagreement over the permissible scope of the talks. Iranian officials insisted discussions be confined to guarantees about the civilian nature of Tehran’s nuclear programme and rejected expanding the agenda to include human rights, ballistic missiles, or Iran’s support for armed regional groups. U.S. officials reportedly pushed to broaden the talks to cover missiles, proxy activity and domestic issues, and some accounts indicate negotiators compromised to prioritize the nuclear file for now while leaving room for broader security dialogue in a possible future framework.
Muscat diplomacy amid tensions
The talks took place amid a heightened U.S. military posture and stark warnings from both capitals. Multiple sources reported a U.S. naval buildup in the region, most prominently the carrier group around the USS Abraham Lincoln. U.S. officials kept military options on the table, with White House rhetoric warning of "many options."
“The US delegation is pushing for effectively ‘zero’ Iranian nuclear capacity and has kept military options openly on the table, backed by a nearby US carrier group and President Trump’s warnings about having ‘many options.’”
Iran warned of retaliation and, according to regional reporting, deployed long-range missile assets and issued threats to U.S. bases if attacked. These security pressures and contingency planning dominated the background to Muscat diplomacy.
Iran's negotiation signals
Reporting differs on Tehran’s flexibility. AL‑Monitor cites Iranian officials telling Reuters they could be flexible on uranium enrichment, offering to hand over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium and to accept zero enrichment under a consortium arrangement. Those officials also stressed Iran’s red line that missile talks are off the table.
Other outlets relay Iran’s public stance that talks should be narrowly nuclear and that Tehran insisted on equal standing and respect in any continuation. Observers therefore read mixed signals: reported offers on enrichment are juxtaposed with firm Iranian refusals on missiles and regional activity.
Gulf diplomacy and risks
Analysts and regional diplomats remain skeptical that Muscat will by itself produce a comprehensive settlement. Reports portray the session as preparation for possible technical talks, with Gulf diplomacy credited for keeping dialogue alive.
“The talks aim to prepare conditions for resuming formal diplomatic and technical negotiations amid fears that failure could increase the risk of wider conflict in the Middle East.”
Some outlets warn that failure to reach a practical framework could heighten the risk of wider conflict, given recent strikes, domestic unrest inside Iran, and the overt military signaling. Oman’s role as a mediator was broadly portrayed positively, but sources diverge on whether this is a first step toward de-escalation or merely a holding action under intense pressure.
