When Iranian and US officials met for talks in the Omani capital of Muscat on February 6, many journalists and analysts were speculating as to whether diplomacy will fail and whether war will inevitably follow. But that framing misses the deeper reality of this moment. The more important question is why both sides have returned to the negotiating table at all, despite years of hostility, sanctions, proxy conflict and open threats.

The anxiety that has surrounded the talks is understandable. Washington warned its citizens to leave Iran hours before the talks took place, fuelling speculation about military strikes. US officials outlined sweeping demands that go far beyond wanting to curb Iran’s ambition to possess nuclear weapons. And recent history offers no shortage of examples where negotiations have collapsed into violence.

But treating the talks as a countdown to conflict misunderstands diplomacy and the balance of power in the Middle East today. Negotiations are not a single test of resolve, nor a one-off gamble on peace. The talks in Oman were not a final reckoning but an opening move. They reflect a shared recognition in Washington and Tehran that 15 years of coercion, pressure and force have failed to produce decisive outcomes, and that escalation now would be vastly more dangerous than before.

As diplomacy scholar Geoffrey Berridge has long argued, the first stage of any serious diplomatic process is the establishment of common ground on key points. Only once this groundwork is laid can substantive negotiations begin. The talks in Oman should thus be understood as an opening phase rather than a decisive round.

The purpose was to clarify positions, communicate red lines and test whether a workable diplomatic pathway exists. Iranian officials described the atmosphere as constructive, noting that the two sides communicated their concerns and views through........

© The Conversation