Summary
High-level talks between Iran and the United States are slated to take place in Muscat, Oman, with expectations tempered by a pronounced dispute over the scope of discussions and by mounting fears of a wider Middle East conflict. Washington has signalled it wants the meeting to cover a wide range of issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missiles, support for armed groups across the region and Tehran’s treatment of its own people. Iran has said the conversation should be confined to nuclear matters.
Setting and positions
U.S. officials have publicly outlined a multi-issue agenda for the Muscat talks. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States wants to address Iran’s nuclear activities, its missile programmes, Tehran’s backing for regional armed groups and how the Iranian government treats its citizens. By contrast, Iran’s negotiators told Omani hosts that Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff should focus solely on nuclear affairs.
Tehran issued a formal statement ahead of the meeting saying it would engage "with authority and with the aim of reaching a fair, mutually acceptable and dignified understanding on the nuclear issue." Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei added that Iran hoped the American side would approach the process with "responsibility, realism and seriousness."
Military backdrop and public warnings
The diplomatic opening comes while the United States has increased naval forces in the region - a buildup President Trump has described as a massive "armada" - and following a severe government crackdown on nationwide protests in Iran last month. Those developments have heightened tensions and left Tehran’s leadership wary that military action remains a live option.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that President Trump was seeking to determine whether a deal could be reached, but she also warned Tehran that the president retained "many options at his disposal, aside from diplomacy as the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world." Separately, President Trump has cautioned that "bad things" would probably happen if a deal could not be reached.
Iran, for its part, has repeatedly warned it would respond strongly to any military strike and has cautioned neighbouring countries hosting U.S. bases that they could be targeted if they were involved in an attack.
Agenda rift and red lines
The two sides enter the talks with a fundamental disagreement over whether Iran’s missile programme and regional activities may be discussed. Iranian officials have made clear they will not negotiate on "defence capabilities, including missiles and their range," setting a firm red line negotiators must navigate if they hope to produce an agreement that could defuse the current escalation.
Adding to the tension, Iran’s state television reported hours ahead of the talks that one of the country’s most advanced long-range ballistic missiles, the Khorramshahr 4, had been deployed at a Revolutionary Guards underground missile complex.
Nuclear specifics on the table
Despite the standoff over scope, Iranian officials told Reuters last week that Tehran was prepared to show "flexibility on uranium enrichment," including the possibility of transferring 400 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and accepting zero enrichment under a consortium arrangement as a potential solution. At the same time, Iran insists that its right to enrich uranium is not negotiable and maintains that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes.
The United States and Israel have accused Iran of past efforts to develop nuclear weapons; Iran denies those charges. The article also states that in June, the United States struck Iranian nuclear targets, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign, and that Tehran has since said its uranium enrichment work has stopped.
Analyst view and outlook
Analysts note the narrowness of Iran’s permitted agenda and the depth of mutual distrust make a decisive breakthrough unlikely. Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Washington-based FDD think-tank, said it was difficult to see Tehran conceding enough in talks for the U.S. to claim a credible breakthrough, and he suggested that, given the impasse, military conflict is more likely than not.
Negotiators in Muscat must therefore reconcile Tehran’s refusal to discuss missile and defence capabilities with Washington’s broader set of demands if the talks are to reduce the risk of further escalation. The presence of advanced missile systems and public warnings from both capitals underline how tenuous the situation remains going into the meeting.
Conclusion
The Oman meeting represents a diplomatic opening amid profound disagreements. Whether it leads to concrete, verifiable steps to curb nuclear risks or instead deepens the standoff will depend on whether the parties can bridge the divide over scope and concessions while tensions remain high in the region.