Does diplomacy resist? dialogue faces the specter of war in the Gulf

After attacks, sanctions and internal repression, indirect dialogue appears as an attempt to avoid escalation in the Middle East

In the quiet of a palace near Muscat airport, something rare happened on Friday (6). As the world watched the escalation of warmongering rhetoric, representatives of two nations that had been enemies for decades crossed the same gate — not to meet face to face, but to hear from a common mediator. Oman, a small sultanate with a vocation for peace, opened its doors to a fragile and necessary exercise: trying to transform threats into understanding. For Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the result was a “good start”. Perhaps too modest for explosive headlines, this expression carries profound meaning at a time when bombs seem to speak louder than words.

The diplomatic bet comes after dark months. In June, a twelve-day war between Israel and Iran left deep scars. American planes bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. Tehran responded with violent internal repression against protesters calling for dignity. The isolation of the Islamic Republic has deepened. However, even under extreme pressure, the Iranian regime has demonstrated a willingness to talk. This decision reveals something crucial: even authoritarian governments recognize that total war brings unpredictable consequences for all sides involved.

Oman has built a unique reputation in the Middle East over the decades. While neighbors bet on strict military alliances, Muscat cultivated active neutrality. Minister Badr al-Busaidi separately received Abbas Araghchi and American envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as Jared Kushner and even Admiral Brad Cooper — an unusual military presence that signals how defense and diplomacy are intertwined today. This indirect format, where the parties do not face each other directly, allows you to save political face while advancing technically. It’s a delicate but effective art.

The choice of location was not accidental. The palace near the airport had already hosted similar talks in 2025. Its operational discretion facilitates quick and confidential movements. Journalists watched as Iranian convoys arrived first, followed hours later by American vehicles with visible flags. This choreographed ritual demonstrates the extreme care required when two historical adversaries resume contact. Each gesture carries symbolism. Each pause reveals accumulated distrust.

It is impossible to analyze these negotiations without recognizing the internal Iranian context. Last month’s massive protests represented, according to American officials, the greatest challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei since 1979. The regime’s response was brutal: thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of arrests. This internal repression, however, should not overshadow a geopolitical fact: authoritarian governments also calculate costs. A direct confrontation with the United States could further deepen Iran’s internal crisis. Therefore, the willingness to dialogue reflects pragmatism, not just generosity.

On the American side, Admiral Cooper’s presence in the conversations reveals an interesting contradiction. Washington maintains the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the region and regularly intercepts Iranian drones. At the same time, it sends diplomats to talk. This duality — iron fist and outstretched hand — characterizes contemporary foreign policy. However, experts from the Gulf monarchies fear that more military attacks will trigger a devastating regional war. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a third of the world’s oil passes, thus becomes a board where recklessness can cost all of humanity dearly.

Herein lies a fundamental progressive dilemma. How to defend diplomacy without ignoring Iranian repression? The answer is not to choose between peace and human rights. Both are inseparable. Unilateral sanctions and military threats rarely strengthen domestic democratic movements; They often serve to justify further repression. At the same time, remaining silent about human rights violations for geopolitical convenience is a betrayal of the values ​​we defend.

Chancellor Araghchi’s position deserves attention when he wrote in X that “Iran enters diplomacy with open eyes and a solid memory of the past year.” This phrase echoes real frustrations with previous unfulfilled agreements. To build trust, it is essential to honor commitments already made. Equal conditions and mutual respect, as he highlighted, are not empty rhetoric — they are prerequisites for any lasting understanding.

The nuclear program and the limits of concessions

Proposals in circulation include suspending uranium enrichment for three years and sending highly enriched material out of the country, with Russia as a possible destination. However, advisors close to the supreme leader have already stated that ending the nuclear program or exporting uranium is out of the question. This position reflects not only national pride, but also the Iranian perception that civilian nuclear capability is a sovereign right — especially when countries like Israel maintain undeclared arsenals.

American Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists on also negotiating ballistic missiles and other issues. This broad approach can be strategic, but it also risks making dialogue unfeasible. Moving forward requires recognizing that small, concrete steps are worth more than large, impossible agreements. Gradually reducing enrichment, allowing more rigorous inspections and establishing direct communication channels would already represent significant gains for regional security.

Ultimately, the conversations in Oman represent something deeply human: the refusal to accept war as an inevitable fate. While politicians inflate rhetoric on social media, anonymous diplomats work behind the scenes to prevent catastrophe. This effort deserves our critical and vigilant support. Supporting diplomacy does not mean naivety. It means understanding that Iranian, American and civilian civilians across the region pay the highest price when weapons replace words.

Peace is not born from grandiose gestures, but from discreet meetings in palaces near airports. From separate rounds of conversations coordinated by a patient mediator. From leaders who, even under internal pressure, choose dialogue over escalation. In this tense moment, celebrating a “good start” is not naive. It is recognizing that, even in the densest geopolitical darkness, there is still room for reason. And as long as there is this space, we must defend it with all our strength.

With information from AP*