Iran–United States: “Last-chance” talks in Oman

On Friday, 6 February 2026, Washington and Tehran reopened an indirect diplomatic channel in Muscat, Oman, focused on the Iranian nuclear file. These talks take place in an environment shaped as much by military deterrence and economic coercion as by diplomacy itself. Both sides described the opening round as “positive”, while clearly signalling that failure could once again push the region toward escalation.

What happened in Oman: dialogue resumes, but under strict limits

• The discussions, mediated by Oman, were framed by Tehran as a “good start”, and by President Trump as “very good”, with follow-up rounds expected after consultations in both capitals.

• Iran’s red line is clear: negotiations must remain strictly limited to the nuclear issue, excluding ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks—topics Washington would like to eventually include.

• The underlying logic is transactional: sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear constraints and inspections, but with very low trust on both sides and escalation kept as a bargaining tool.

  
  

“Maximum pressure” 2026: secondary tariffs as leverage

At the same time, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order establishing a framework to impose tariffs (up to 25%) on imports from countries that continue doing business with Iran. The objective is to raise the international cost of economic ties with Tehran, even while talks are ongoing.

➡️ Implication: diplomacy and coercion are running in parallel. Oman offers a diplomatic off-ramp, but Washington is deliberately tightening the economic vise to shape the outcome of negotiations.

The Israeli assessment: regime collapse seen as “realistic”

From an Israeli security perspective, a window of opportunity is perceived as opening. According to Israeli analysts, the collapse of the Iranian regime is now considered realistic, though not inevitable. Their assessment stresses that without directly threatening the system’s center of gravity — Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the regime could survive, regroup, and repress future unrest.

This reading drives two dynamics:

• Deep scepticism toward negotiations seen as potentially serving Iranian delay tactics.

• Continued preparation for military options, based on the belief that Iran’s air-defence posture and regional deterrence have been weakened.

The core issue: nuclear risk versus regime survival

All sources converge on a key point:

• Iran’s priority is sanctions relief and regime stability.

• The US priority is to quickly reduce nuclear breakout risk.

  
  

These goals collide against the backdrop of domestic instability inside Iran and a highly volatile regional balance, making any agreement fragile by definition.

Plausible short-term scenarios

1. Narrow nuclear deal: partial freeze on enrichment and reinforced inspections in exchange for limited sanctions relief. This hinges on Washington accepting a nuclear-only agreement.

2. Negotiations under pressure: talks continue while the US progressively activates secondary tariffs to squeeze Tehran and its partners.

3. Rapid breakdown: if either side concludes the other is merely buying time, the situation could slide back toward military strikes and retaliation, especially if protests resume inside Iran and repression intensifies.