MUSCAT AND THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR DOSSIER - Cristina Di Silvio - ETHICA SOCIETAS-Rivista di scienze umane e sociali

Indirect diplomacy, military deterrence, and crisis containment in the Gulf

Abstract: Indirect talks between the United States and Iran in Muscat mark a renewed attempt to contain an increasingly complex crisis, unfolding amid heightened military tensions, economic pressure, and regional instability. Against a backdrop of divergences over the Iranian nuclear dossier, deterrence postures in the Strait of Hormuz, and fragile diplomatic balances, dialogue appears precarious yet necessary. This analysis explores the strategic significance of the negotiations, international reactions, and the implications for regional and global security.

Keywords: #Iran #UnitedStates #Diplomacy #Geopolitics #IranianNuclearProgram #StraitOfHormuz #Deterrence #MiddleEastCrisis #Sanctions #Backchannel #InternationalSecurity #Multipolarism #Russia #China #GlobalBalance #ForeignPolicy #EthicaSocietas #PoliticalScience #InternationalRelations #GeostrategicAnalysis #CristinaDiSilvio #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli

versione italiana

Executive summary

The latest round of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, held in Muscat on February 6, 2026, did not produce substantial progress on the nuclear dossier, but it played a crucial role in crisis containment. In a context marked by deep mutual distrust, military pressure in the Gulf, and significant global energy implications, the maintenance of a diplomatic channel—however fragile—currently represents the only credible tool to prevent uncontrolled escalation. Oman’s role as a discreet mediator confirms the strategic relevance of “low-profile” regional actors in managing high-intensity geopolitical crises.

Context and strategic relevance

Oman continues to serve as a privileged diplomatic platform for US–Iran dialogue, thanks to its longstanding posture of active neutrality and consolidated relations with both parties¹. The choice of Muscat signals a deliberate effort to avoid highly politicized venues and to reduce media exposure, thereby favoring an incremental and discreet approach.

The negotiations were conducted indirectly, under the mediation of Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, reflecting both the deterioration of bilateral trust and the shared interest in avoiding a complete breakdown of diplomatic engagement.

Negotiating agenda and structural divergences

Tehran continues to advocate for a narrowly focused agenda limited exclusively to the nuclear program, with particular attention to uranium enrichment levels and stockpile management, firmly rejecting any expansion of the talks to include ballistic missiles or support for regional proxies².

Washington, by contrast, maintains a broader strategic perspective, arguing that an agreement confined to the nuclear issue would be insufficient to ensure regional security or to prevent the emergence of an Iranian military nuclear capability³. This asymmetry of objectives constitutes the principal obstacle to rapid and substantive progress and constrains the prospects for a comprehensive agreement in the short term.

Military dimension and energy security: the Hormuz factor

The talks are taking place amid heightened military pressure in the Persian Gulf. The US presence in the Strait of Hormuz continues to perform a deterrent function, while Iran employs naval demonstrations and indirect pressure tools as bargaining leverage.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a global strategic chokepoint: approximately 20% of the world’s oil trade and a significant share of liquefied natural gas transit through this corridor⁴. Any incident, even a limited one, would have immediate repercussions on energy markets, global inflation, and European energy security, rendering the EU an indirectly exposed actor in the evolving US–Iran confrontation⁵.

International pressure and positioning of key actors

Alongside diplomatic engagement, Washington has intensified the sanctions regime through targeted measures against financial networks and Iranian oil export activities, confirming a dual-track strategy combining economic pressure with limited diplomatic openness.

The European Union has reiterated the importance of dialogue and de-escalation, albeit with a reduced margin of influence compared to the JCPOA phase. Russia and China have expressed willingness to facilitate the process without direct involvement, maintaining positions aligned with their broader strategic interests⁶.

Regional Gulf actors—particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—are closely monitoring developments, fully aware that a failure of diplomacy would heighten the risk of regional instability and energy shocks.

Iran’s domestic factor

Domestically, Iran continues to face economic pressure, social tensions, and repression of dissent. This internal dimension, often underestimated in strategic analysis, directly shapes Tehran’s negotiating posture by reinforcing a security-driven perception that constrains diplomatic flexibility⁷.

Policy implications

For the European Union:

Support the preservation of indirect diplomatic channels and strengthen mechanisms aimed at preventing energy crises linked to instability in the Strait of Hormuz.

For international decision-makers:

Avoid “all-or-nothing” approaches and promote partial, verifiable arrangements as instruments of temporary stabilization.

For think tanks and analytical institutions:

Monitor the interaction between Iran’s domestic dynamics, sanctions pressure, and regional security trends as key variables shaping the negotiation process.

Conclusion

The Muscat round does not represent a breakthrough, but it confirms that, under current conditions, diplomacy functions primarily as a containment tool. In the absence of a minimum level of trust, dialogue does not resolve the conflict but limits its systemic costs. For Europe and the international community, preserving this fragile space of negotiation remains a strategic priority.

Essential international sources

International Crisis Group, Oman’s Quiet Diplomacy and the Iran–US Channel, Bruxelles.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran Nuclear Verification Reports, Vienna.
U.S. Department of State, Iran Policy Statements and Sanctions Briefings.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), World Oil Transit Chokepoints: Hormuz.
European Commission, EU Energy Security Strategy and External Risks.
SIPRI, Great Power Competition and the Iran Nuclear Issue.
Freedom House, Iran: Country Report.