When Diplomacy Meets Deterrence: Inside the Latest US–Iran Standoff

A Negotiation That Nearly Didn’t Happen

The confirmation that the United States and Iran will meet in Oman on Friday should not be mistaken for diplomatic momentum. Rather, it underscores how close the process came to collapse and how fragile the entire enterprise remains. For much of Wednesday, senior officials in Washington and Tehran openly contradicted one another on whether talks would even take place, where they would be held, and what they would cover. One Western diplomat described the episode succinctly as “negotiations about negotiations.”
The talks were initially expected to take place in Turkey, before Iran insisted on relocating them to Muscat and excluding regional participants. According to US officials cited by Axios, Washington responded with an ultimatum. “We told them it is this or nothing,” one senior official said. “They said, ‘Okay, then nothing.’” At that point, the diplomatic track appeared effectively dead.
What revived it was not a breakthrough between Washington and Tehran, but pressure from the region. At least nine Arab and Muslim governments — including Gulf states that host US military bases — urged the White House not to walk away. A US official acknowledged that the administration agreed to proceed largely “to be respectful” of allied concerns, even as skepticism about Iran’s intentions remained high.

The venue ultimately reverted to Oman, a country Iran regards as a trusted interlocutor and which has quietly mediated previous rounds of US–Iran engagement. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed the meeting would take place in Muscat at 10 a.m., thanking Oman for “making all necessary arrangements.”

A Clash Over Scope: Nuclear File or Comprehensive Deal?

At the heart of the near-collapse lies a fundamental disagreement over scope. Iran insists that any talks must be confined strictly to the nuclear file. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran’s ballistic missile program is “off the table,” describing it as a core pillar of national defense. Iranian media has repeatedly stressed that the negotiations will focus on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear energy program” and the lifting of sanctions, and nothing more.
Washington’s position is the opposite. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated bluntly that a nuclear-only discussion is insufficient. “I think in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful, they will have to include certain things,” Rubio said, listing Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, its support for armed groups across the region, and its treatment of protesters alongside nuclear issues. He added: “I’m not sure you can reach a deal with these guys. But we’re going to try to find out.”

This mismatch is not a procedural dispute; it reflects incompatible strategic priorities. For Iran, missiles and regional allies form the backbone of deterrence. For the United States, leaving those capabilities untouched risks repeating past cycles of temporary de-escalation followed by renewed confrontation.

Trump’s Coercive Diplomacy and the Shadow of Force

Hovering over the talks is the explicit threat of military action. President Donald Trump has adopted an unusually direct tone in recent remarks. Asked whether Iran’s supreme leader should be concerned, Trump replied: “He should be very worried.” He claimed that US intelligence had uncovered Iranian efforts to rebuild nuclear facilities after last year’s strikes and warned that further attempts would trigger “very bad things.”

These threats are backed by an extensive military buildup. The USS USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is operating in the Arabian Sea alongside destroyers equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Additional US naval assets are positioned in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and near the Strait of Hormuz. According to US officials, this posture is intended both to deter Iran and to ensure Washington can act rapidly if diplomacy fails.
The risk of escalation is not theoretical. On Tuesday, a US F-35 shot down an Iranian Shahed drone that US Central Command said had approached the Abraham Lincoln “aggressively.” Hours later, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats threatened to board a US-flagged tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz, before US naval escorts intervened.

Iran’s Counter-Messaging: Deterrence, Not Capitulation

Iran has responded to US pressure with deliberate deterrence signaling. Senior adviser to the supreme leader Ali Akbar Velayati declared that Iran is “fully prepared to stand against any foreign threat and enemy,” particularly the United States and Israel. Armed Forces Chief Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi claimed Iran has shifted toward a more offensive posture following last year’s war, warning that any miscalculation would provoke a “rapid and decisive” response.

Iranian military officials have been unusually explicit about regional vulnerabilities. Army spokesperson Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia warned that Iran has “easy access to US bases” across the Middle East and that any conflict would expand far beyond Iran’s borders. He emphasized that Iran’s armed forces are prepared for both diplomacy and war, and that it is Washington that must choose between compromise and confrontation.
Iran has also publicized upgrades to its ballistic missile forces and the integration of 1,000 strategic drones into operational units. Despite losses during the 2025 conflict, US and Israeli assessments indicate that Iran retains thousands of short- and medium-range missiles. Even conservative estimates suggest Iran could target US bases and allied infrastructure across the region within minutes of a conflict beginning.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Energy Dimension

The stakes extend well beyond security calculations. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most critical energy chokepoint, with roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transiting it daily — about one-fifth of global consumption — alongside nearly 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas trade.

Markets are already reacting to diplomatic volatility. When talks were confirmed, Brent crude fell to around $68 per barrel. When reports emerged that negotiations might collapse, prices jumped by more than 3 percent in a single session. Analysts at Citi warned that while diplomatic signals have temporarily eased risk premiums, “upside risks remain embedded,” noting that traders continue to pay for protection against sharp price spikes.
Regional governments understand these risks acutely. Gulf states hosting US forces fear that even limited clashes could provoke Iranian retaliation against shipping or energy infrastructure, triggering global economic fallout.

Iran’s Internal Vulnerability: The Regime Survival Factor

Behind Tehran’s defiance lies deep internal anxiety. Intelligence assessments cited by Reuters indicate that senior Iranian officials have warned Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that public anger following the recent crackdown has reached a point where “fear is no longer a deterrent.” Human rights groups estimate that more than 6,000 protesters were killed during the unrest, with some projections placing the toll significantly higher.
Officials fear that a US strike could reignite nationwide protests and “inflict irreparable damage to the political establishment.” This concern helps explain Iran’s contradictory posture: projecting strength abroad while cautiously reopening diplomatic channels to buy time and avert escalation.

President Masoud Pezeshkian captured this duality when he said Iran was ready for negotiations, but only “in an environment free from threats and unreasonable expectations.” Iranian diplomats have floated limited nuclear concessions, including reducing enrichment levels or transferring roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. Yet Khamenei has repeatedly described enrichment itself as a “red line,” calling a nuclear program without it “practically worthless.”

Washington’s Dilemma: Coercion Without Collapse

For the United States, the strategic space is narrowing. Maintaining a large forward military presence in the Middle East costs well over $1 billion per month and diverts resources from other priorities, including competition with China. Yet a limited strike risks triggering precisely the regional escalation Washington’s allies fear.

Arab League officials have warned explicitly against a return to war, arguing that the region, exhausted by years of conflict, cannot absorb another destabilizing confrontation. Even Israel, while skeptical of diplomacy, has privately urged Washington to ensure that any engagement does not constrain future military options.

Conclusion: Negotiating Under Strategic Fatigue

What distinguishes the current US–Iran talks is not optimism, but exhaustion. Diplomacy is proceeding not because trust exists, but because all alternatives appear worse. A narrow nuclear-only deal risks repeating past cycles of temporary calm followed by renewed crisis. A comprehensive agreement strikes at the heart of Iran’s deterrence doctrine and, in Tehran’s view, its regime survival.

The meeting in Muscat may succeed in establishing a channel, slowing escalation, and buying time. But it is taking place under the shadow of war, shaped less by confidence than by mutual fear of what follows if diplomacy finally collapses.

The central question, therefore, is not whether Washington and Tehran can reach an agreement this week. It is whether diplomacy, conducted under coercion, internal fragility, and regional fatigue, can still prevent the Middle East from sliding into a conflict whose costs everyone understands — and no one believes they could ultimately control.