����ֱ��

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi’s lightning visit to Tehran on May 31 has injected fresh momentum into the stalled US-Iran nuclear negotiations, as the Gulf sultanate positions itself as the crucial mediator in preventing regional conflict while advancing diplomatic solutions.

The brief but high-stakes visit saw Al-Busaidi deliver an American proposal to Iranian officials regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, setting the stage for a pivotal sixth round of negotiations scheduled for later this month under Omani supervision.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded via social media, stating his government would “examine the proposal and respond according to our principles and national interests.” The diplomatic exchange followed closely on from President Masoud Pezeshkian’s two-day state visit to Muscat, where he held extensive talks with Sultan Haitham bin Tariq on political, economic and bilateral cooperation matters. He also met with high-level Omani officials, businessmen and the Iranian community in Oman.

Oman is pursuing tangible outcomes from the current US-Iran diplomatic process through intensive bilateral engagement and coordination with key Arab nations to build regional consensus around negotiated solutions. The sultanate views dialogue as the only viable mechanism for bridging Washington-Tehran divisions, recognizing that diplomatic breakdown could trigger dangerous escalation dynamics.

Should negotiations collapse or reach an impasse, the resulting tensions might provide Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the political and strategic justification to authorize military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Such strikes would risk unleashing a broader Middle Eastern conflict with catastrophic and unpredictable ramifications — a scenario Gulf Arab states are determined to prevent as they advance ambitious economic transformation initiatives that fundamentally depend on sustained regional stability and cross-border cooperation frameworks.

The sultanate views dialogue as the only viable mechanism for bridging Washington-Tehran divisions

Hassan Al-Mustafa

Uranium enrichment remains the core obstacle frustrating diplomatic progress. American officials have sent mixed signals, alternately supporting low-level enrichment for peaceful purposes while sometimes demanding complete suspension — a position Iran categorically rejects.

Araghchi has consistently maintained that enrichment capabilities represent “fundamental national necessities,” declaring that “the right to enrichment has always been our Foreign Ministry objective in both previous and current negotiations,” while emphasizing Iran’s rejection of what it terms foreign “hegemony.”

Building on these diplomatic efforts, Oman has developed behind-the-scenes proposals that remain unpublicized, though Iranian diplomatic sources have revealed to me a “core concept centered on temporary enrichment cessation lasting several months, with potential extension up to two or three years.”

This Iranian moratorium would trigger reciprocal American concessions, including graduated sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian financial assets, creating space for sustained bilateral negotiations aimed at securing a comprehensive, lasting accord.

According to the source, this framework would ensure “Washington refrains from blocking Iranian enrichment activities within internationally sanctioned parameters for civilian nuclear applications,” representing “a pragmatic compromise acceptable to both sides that could narrow existing gaps and avert diplomatic collapse.”

Tehran appears receptive to this approach, particularly given its prior willingness to halt enrichment activities temporarily. The implementation of such measures would likely be interpreted as a confidence-building initiative demonstrating genuine commitment to peaceful resolution of the nuclear standoff.

Sweeping alignment remains distant, suggesting an interim arrangement may represent the most achievable near-term outcome

Hassan Al-Mustafa

However, implementation faces significant technical hurdles requiring resolution. First, determining the operational status and disposition of Iran’s advanced third-generation centrifuge infrastructure. Second, establishing protocols for managing Iran’s substantial stockpiles of 60 percent-enriched uranium. Third, resolving uranium supply chain arrangements for Iranian reactor operations — whether through the depletion of existing reserves or negotiating external procurement agreements. And, fourth, defining the scope and structure of international monitoring mechanisms, particularly whether Tehran would accept oversight personnel beyond standard International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

Concerning the American initiative delivered by the Omani foreign minister to Iranian officials on May 31, while official details remain classified, Axios cited a US administration source indicating the “American proposal aims to resolve the central impasse surrounding Iran’s insistence on maintaining domestic enrichment capabilities.”

According to Axios, US envoy Steve Witkoff’s communication to Tehran outlined a concept for “a regional consortium operating under joint International Atomic Energy Agency and US oversight to manage uranium enrichment for civilian nuclear applications,” with the critical caveat that Washington “insists any shared enrichment infrastructure be established outside Iranian territory.”

These recommendations align with a complementary diplomatic formula proposing “American acknowledgment of Iranian enrichment rights contingent upon Tehran’s complete cessation of all enrichment activities.”

The New York Times reported that “the American document delivered to Iran consists of condensed talking points rather than a comprehensive draft accord,” indicating that sweeping US-Iranian alignment remains distant and suggesting an interim framework arrangement may represent the most achievable near-term outcome.

Meanwhile, the Tehran Times emphasized in its June 1 analysis that any successful agreement must treat Tehran’s core demands as fundamental rather than peripheral considerations, particularly regarding “effective, verifiable and irreversible sanctions relief” — described as a nonnegotiable prerequisite for meaningful progress.

The forthcoming sixth round of talks promises to be exceptionally demanding, but it could prove decisive in charting the exact trajectory of US-Iran diplomatic engagement, establishing whether the two nations can forge workable accommodations that secure Gulf Arab endorsement, while thwarting the military escalation actively sought by extremist factions and the Netanyahu administration.

• Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran. X: @Halmustafa