Muscat Talks and the Consolidation of Iran’s Strategic Equation
An analysis of the Muscat negotiations concluded that regardless of the final outcome, Iran has succeeded in imposing its own strategic equation
Iran, PUREWILAYAH.COM - An analysis of the Muscat negotiations concluded that regardless of the final outcome, Iran has succeeded in imposing its own strategic equation.
Within the broader landscape of regional and international media assessments of the recent nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, Al Mayadeen examined the negotiations through the lens of the strategic parameters established before and after the talks. The analysis is as follows:
Negotiations Held on Tehran’s Terms
Significant controversy surrounded the Oman talks even before they began, including disputes over the venue, intense media hype, and implicit U.S. threats to cancel the negotiations should Tehran refuse to retreat from its demands.
Despite Iran’s refusal to back down from its positions—and despite the talks being held in Muscat, as requested by Tehran—the American side ultimately came to the negotiating table. Notably, at the same time, official Iranian sources repeatedly emphasized the country’s military strength and its readiness to respond to any form of aggression.
The talks ultimately proceeded, with Iranian and American delegations traveling to Oman to launch negotiations strictly focused on the nuclear file. This stood in contrast to Washington’s earlier insistence on expanding the agenda to include Iran’s missile program and its support for regional allies within the Resistance Axis—demands strongly pushed by the Zionist regime.
Tehran also demonstrated that its security and logistical readiness was not intended to derail negotiations, but rather to establish a clear framework and understanding for entering talks on its own terms. The Muscat negotiations were held on February 6, 2026, and concluded with an agreement to continue dialogue and set a date for the next round.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the atmosphere of the talks as “good and serious” and a “successful start,” while clearly drawing red lines, stressing that negotiations were confined to the nuclear file and that the condition of “avoiding threats and pressure” was essential for their continuation.
This reflects Tehran’s intent to convert political time into tangible economic and security gains. Meanwhile, Washington entered the talks with a delegation including figures such as Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy, and the commander of CENTCOM—seeking to apply dual political and military pressure.
Consolidating Iran’s Equation Before Negotiations
Beyond all stated positions, the core contours of Iran’s strategy—rooted in comprehensive deterrence—are unmistakably clear. This strategy is not limited to traditional power balancing, but is based on deterrence through escalating costs and the balance of fear.
Before negotiations even began, Tehran succeeded in establishing a firm field equation: Iran’s sovereignty is not a testing ground nor a bargaining chip during negotiations. A clear and official warning was issued that any direct attack—regardless of scale or justification—would be treated as an open declaration of war and met accordingly.
This firmness was not rhetorical. It represents a security doctrine designed to deny the enemy any prospect of limited strikes or controlled escalation. What further complicates U.S. operational calculations is that Tehran has effectively erased the boundary between a “limited confrontation” and a full-scale war.
According to the strategic doctrine articulated by Imam Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is no longer such a thing as a limited strike; any confrontation can escalate into a broad regional war with severe consequences for the United States and its allies, threatening all their interests.
This strategy does not rely solely on Iran’s ties with its regional allies in the Resistance Axis, but also on Tehran’s independent capability to target all U.S. bases in the region as well as the entirety of occupied Palestine.
This strategic reality has placed Washington before extremely dangerous options. The use of military pressure as a tool to improve negotiating leverage—historically a preferred American tactic—is now either ineffective or fraught with unacceptable risks. Washington understands that even a “message strike” could trigger a full-scale regional war.
Iran’s Core Demands in the Talks
Claims that Tehran is merely stalling, or assertions that Washington is using negotiations as cover for imminent military aggression, fail to hold under current conditions.
Field and political analyses indicate that negotiation and time are presently aligned in serving Iran’s higher interests. Iran is not buying time diplomatically; it is consolidating and stabilizing its strategic equation—particularly on the domestic front.
Decision-makers in Tehran understand that negotiating strength is rooted first and foremost in internal stability. Accordingly, the objective set for these talks reflects a national consensus aligned with public aspirations, which explains why Iranian negotiators have emphasized the lifting of economic sanctions as a central demand.
U.S. Admission of Failure in the 12-Day War
The picture in Washington appears far more complex. The Trump administration has realized that war is not an easy option, facing broad domestic opposition. U.S. allies—both regional and European—have also warned against the consequences of any major military escalation, with none supporting the path to war.
Thus, despite all military posturing, Washington is not genuinely pursuing war, but rather attempting to extract fundamental concessions from Tehran through maximum pressure. The aftermath of the 12-day war between Iran and the Zionist regime remains a persistent dilemma for U.S. policymakers.
One striking contradiction highlighted by these talks is that Washington is now negotiating over the very Iranian nuclear program that U.S. media, intelligence agencies, and senior White House officials previously claimed had been destroyed or neutralized during the 12-day war.
Similarly, Washington’s insistence on placing Iran’s ballistic missile program on the negotiating table directly undermines Israel’s earlier narrative that Iran’s missile capabilities had been significantly weakened.
This reveals the strategic instability of Washington’s current position—oscillating between threats of war and a desire to negotiate—particularly given that the U.S. has no record of a successful war against Iran. Had military force been capable of achieving Washington’s objectives, it would have done so during the 12-day war.
Accordingly, analysts conclude that after realizing military options cannot deliver its goals, Washington is attempting to pursue through negotiations what it failed to achieve through war.
Scenarios Ahead and the Imposition of Tehran’s Equation
At present, neither side appears inclined to turn the negotiations into a direct, full-scale military confrontation. However, even if the U.S. were to test limited military moves, Tehran has already delivered its message: it possesses sufficient power and leverage to deliver an unprecedented response to any aggression—one that would differ in both nature and geographic scope from all previous confrontations.
Within the negotiating framework, Tehran enjoys broad diplomatic maneuvering space. Moreover, the failure of persistent U.S. efforts to provoke internal conflict, force regime change, or even weaken Iran—especially following the collapse of recent unrest projects—has provided Tehran with additional leverage to approach negotiations from a renewed position of strength.
Furthermore, the confinement of negotiations strictly to the nuclear file—free from any U.S. sovereign interference in Iran’s internal affairs, despite Washington’s wishes—stands as a clear indicator of Iran’s strength both domestically and internationally. It represents a direct challenge to longstanding American attempts to impose conditions on its adversaries.
Ultimately, regardless of the outcome or form these negotiations take, one fact remains undeniable: the Islamic Republic of Iran has succeeded in imposing its conditions and resisting multifaceted pressure. Whatever unfolds in the coming days, Tehran has neither surrendered nor conceded to its enemy—and has consolidated a clear and enduring strategic equation. (PW)