Iran presses for a lasting deal as US widens scope in Muscat talks

Iran entered high-level talks with the United States in Muscat on Friday seeking what officials described as a durable agreement, as Washington signalled that any understanding must sit within a wider regional framework. The negotiations, hosted by Oman, reflect an attempt by both sides to test whether long-running hostility can be channelled into a structured outcome at a moment of heightened tension across West Asia.

Officials in Tehran said the objective was to secure commitments that endure beyond electoral cycles and policy shifts, an implicit reference to the collapse of previous arrangements following changes in US administrations. The talks in Muscat were framed by Iran as pragmatic rather than optimistic, with negotiators instructed to probe areas of convergence while guarding against what they see as expansive demands that could dilute core interests.

From Washington’s perspective, the agenda extends beyond bilateral nuclear and sanctions questions. US officials have indicated that regional security, freedom of navigation, and the conduct of allied and partner forces form part of the broader picture. This approach reflects a view in United States policy circles that compartmentalised deals have struggled to deliver stability, particularly amid conflicts involving regional actors and proxy groups.

Iranian representatives counter that durable agreements require reciprocity and predictability. They have emphasised the need for clear sanctions relief mechanisms, verifiable steps, and safeguards against unilateral withdrawal. Tehran’s stance draws on the experience of earlier agreements where economic benefits were short-lived, leaving domestic constituencies sceptical of renewed engagement. Officials have stressed that any outcome must translate into tangible economic breathing room, including access to trade, finance, and energy markets.

The Muscat talks also unfold against a complex regional backdrop. Escalating confrontations, maritime incidents, and the risk of miscalculation have sharpened concerns that diplomatic failure could spill into broader conflict. Analysts note that this environment increases pressure on negotiators to show progress, even as it narrows room for compromise. For Iran, the calculus involves balancing deterrence with diplomacy; for Washington, it involves reassuring partners while keeping channels open with Tehran.

A notable feature of the discussions is the role of intermediaries. Oman has long positioned itself as a discreet facilitator, leveraging trust with multiple parties to host sensitive exchanges. Its involvement underscores a regional preference for quiet diplomacy at times when public posturing risks hardening positions. Observers say Muscat’s credibility as a neutral venue has helped sustain dialogue even when formal relations remain strained.

Economic considerations loom large. Iran’s economy has faced sustained pressure from sanctions, currency volatility, and constrained investment. Tehran’s negotiating posture reflects an effort to stabilise conditions without conceding on issues it deems sovereign. US officials, meanwhile, face domestic scrutiny over any arrangement perceived as lenient, particularly in an election year environment where foreign policy decisions carry political weight.

There are also signals of evolving tactics. Iranian negotiators have suggested phased steps tied to measurable benchmarks, while US counterparts have floated parallel tracks addressing nuclear compliance alongside regional de-escalation. The challenge lies in sequencing these elements so that early steps build confidence rather than trigger backlash. Both sides appear wary of front-loading concessions without guarantees of follow-through.