Iran and the United States are poised to begin a new round of indirect nuclear negotiations in Oman on Sunday, according to diplomatic sources. The arrangements for these talks, conducted through intermediaries to avoid direct contact, were finalized this week, signaling a renewed push to address Iran’s advancing nuclear program and mounting regional instability. The talks, which will bring envoys from both Tehran and Washington together under Omani mediation, are being closely watched by Israel amid growing regional threats linked to Iran’s network of armed proxies.
Oman, which has frequently played the role of regional mediator, offers a discreet environment where both sides can pursue confidence-building measures without the pressure of public scrutiny or direct confrontation. At the core of the agenda is the question of whether the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the nuclear agreement abandoned by the United States in 2018—can be revived or adapted to meet today’s strategic and technological realities.
Regional Security Landscape: The Iranian Threat and Its Proxies
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack—the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust, perpetrated by terrorists trained and supplied by Iran—the Israeli government has recalibrated its security doctrine to focus on the intersection of Iran’s nuclear progress and its sponsorship of regional terrorism. Over the past year, Israeli security officials have observed escalating rocket fire from Hezbollah in Lebanon, guided drone attacks from Syria, and maritime assaults launched by the Houthis in Yemen. In every instance, intelligence analyses have confirmed direct logistical and operational support from the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization committed to advancing Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and threatening Israel’s survival as a sovereign democracy.
Iran’s nuclear advances—most notably the enrichment of uranium to levels not justified by civilian energy needs and far in excess of JCPOA limits—are seen by Israel as inseparable from the regime’s broader campaign of asymmetric warfare. These advances have shortened Iran’s estimated nuclear breakout time, underscoring the urgent need for international oversight and verifiable restrictions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Israel Katz have repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to act unilaterally in self-defense should diplomacy fail to produce enforceable safeguards.
Diplomatic Dilemmas and U.S. Policy Options
The Biden administration has publicly committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but faces skepticism from Israel and U.S. lawmakers who warn that partial agreements or sanctions relief could allow Tehran to continue covert nuclear work. Since leaving the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” doctrine, the United States has sought a balance between economic pressure, deterrence, and engagement—but efforts to resume direct negotiations have failed amid mutual mistrust and rigid preconditions on both sides.
Congress has imposed oversight requirements and restricted executive authority to re-enter or ease sanctions under a new deal, while Israel has made it clear that any agreement must ensure comprehensive, intrusive inspections and real rollback of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Israeli security planners—citing historical precedent such as the operations that neutralized nuclear sites in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007)—have openly discussed the possibility of unilateral action if Iran’s nuclear advances cross established red lines.
Iran’s Nuclear Stance and Strategic Calculus
Iran’s leadership continues to deny any intention to pursue nuclear weapons, while simultaneously investing in ballistic missile technology and covert nuclear research. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has methodically breached all core restrictions on centrifuges, enrichment levels, and research transparency. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have consistently reported unexplained enrichment activities and constrained site access, echoing Israeli intelligence findings concerning undeclared nuclear development.
Domestically, the Iranian regime balances its aggressive foreign policy with surging political and economic unrest. Sanctions have sharply reduced oil revenues and created widespread inflation and unemployment, fueling protests against the regime’s use of national resources to fund weapons programs and terror proxies over economic reforms.
Regional Alignment and Arab Concerns
The nuclear crisis unfolds against the backdrop of newly forming regional alliances, including the Abraham Accords—which have normalized relations between Israel and several Gulf states. While these accords create new strategic advantages, they have also heightened Iranian fears of encirclement, driving further investments in proxy warfare and direct missile capabilities. Gulf Arab governments—in particular Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain—have supported U.S. and Israeli calls for strict Iranian compliance and nuclear transparency, as none benefit from unchecked nuclear escalation on their borders.
Many of these countries have also deepened security and technological cooperation with Israel, recognizing the scale and immediacy of the Iranian threat. Oman’s efforts to mediate the latest talks reflect not just regional interest in peace, but also widespread concern that any diplomatic miscalculation could trigger a regional war involving world powers.
The International Monitoring Regime: IAEA and Verification
A key area of negotiation remains the role of the IAEA in enforcing any future deal. Israeli officials insist on full access for international inspectors, real-time monitoring, and unconditional snapback mechanisms if Iran is found in breach. Western diplomats echo these demands, recalling past incidents in which Iran concealed sites, delayed reporting, and limited inspector movements, undermining confidence in any purely declarative commitments from Tehran.
Historical Precedents: The Cost of Ambiguity
Israeli concerns over nuclear ambiguity are rooted in decades of regional experience. The lessons of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and Syria’s secret nuclear project point to the limits of international oversight and the risks of delayed action. As Iran approaches weaponization thresholds, Israeli officials publicly and privately weigh the costs and benefits of waiting for diplomacy to deliver versus preparing for a contingency strike.
Israel’s security doctrine, as reaffirmed by Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, is premised on never allowing an existential threat to take root, regardless of the pace or optics of international negotiations.
Looking Forward: Oman Talks as Inflection Point
Sunday’s session in Muscat is not expected to yield immediate breakthroughs, but it represents a crucial test for all parties as regional friction grows. For Israel, the stakes are nothing less than existential: a nuclear-armed Iran, emboldened by successful proxy campaigns, would fundamentally alter not just the balance of power, but the very prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East.
As diplomats from Iran and the United States set their positions in Oman, Israel, along with its regional allies and global partners, will continue to press for a solution that ensures deterrence, verifiability, and—above all—security for those targeted by Iranian-backed terror. The world’s attention now turns to Muscat, where the coming days may well shape the future of the region for years to come.
