In the history of diplomacy, there is a unique type of negotiation where the goal is the conversation itself rather than the agreement. The talks held recently in Muscat belong to this tradition. They represent not a breakthrough but a breakdown disguised as progress, not diplomacy but its elaborate simulation.

What unfolded in Oman’s capital wasn’t merely another round of Middle Eastern shuttle diplomacy. It was performance art with geopolitical consequences, a carefully choreographed production staged by a regime that has elevated the art of negotiating in bad faith to doctrine. Iran doesn’t come to the table to make deals; it arrives to make time.

Consider the historical precedent. Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938 waving a piece of paper, declaring “peace for our time” while Hitler had already charted his course toward war. The agreement was never the point—the interval was. Stalin used negotiations with Japan in 1941 to secure his eastern flank while preparing for Hitler’s betrayal he knew was coming. Yasser Arafat perfected this game during the Oslo years, signing accords while his apparatus continued operations that made those same accords meaningless. The pattern repeats because it works: democracies grow weary, public’s demand “dialogue,” and autocracies exploit that exhaustion.

Iran has studied these masters and refined their techniques. The Islamic Republic approaches negotiations the way a chess grandmaster plays a simultaneous exhibition—multiple boards, different opponents, each receiving just enough attention to believe they’re getting somewhere. Except in this version, the grandmaster isn’t trying to win any particular game; he’s trying to keep all the games going indefinitely.

The Muscat talks exemplify this duplicity with almost theatrical precision. While Iranian representatives exchanged carefully calibrated messages with American counterparts through Omani........

© Blitz