The recent diplomatic manoeuvres involving Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United States have reignited speculation about whether Tehran and Washington might resume dialogue.

The sequence of events, from Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visiting Muscat to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s letter to the Saudi king and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s subsequent meeting with President Donald Trump, suggests that the ground is shifting, even if cautiously.

Talks on Iran’s nuclear programme collapsed after the 12‑day Iran-Israel war in June, which included US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Since then, Washington has been publicly silent, while Tehran has denied any new engagement. Yet Oman’s role as a traditional mediator is significant. Araghchi’s discussions with Badr al Busaidi were framed as routine, but both sides acknowledged that nuclear issues were raised. Al Busaidi later confirmed they reviewed “efforts related to Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Pezeshkian’s letter to King Salman, officially described as concerning bilateral matters and the Hajj pilgrimage, is widely interpreted as a discreet overture. Former MP Mostafa Kavakebian claimed the letter conveyed Iran’s willingness to talk, although not under terms dictated by Washington or based on capitulation. The Foreign Ministry swiftly denied this, underscoring the sensitivity of any suggestion that Tehran is seeking to engage in dialogue.

During his meeting with bin Salman, Trump stated Tehran was seeking a diplomatic resolution and that he is “totally open to it” and already talking to Iranians. “And we start a process. But it would be a nice thing to have a deal with Iran. And we could have done it before the war, but that didn’t work out. And something will happen there, I think,” he said.

Bin Salman, for his part, pledged Saudi support for a US-Iran deal. “We believe it’s good for Iran’s future to have a good deal that would satisfy the region and the world and the United States of America,” he said.

The core stumbling block remains unchanged: Washington’s demand for zero enrichment and restrictions on missile activity, both of which Tehran regards as red lines. Araghchi has insisted Iran retains the right to a peaceful nuclear programme, including enrichment, even after US strikes severely damaged its facilities, effectively stopping any uranium processing.

Pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency adds another challenge for Iran. Its recent November 20 resolution demanding cooperation and inspections of damaged sites and enriched uranium stockpiles has been dismissed by Tehran as politically motivated. Should tensions escalate, referral of Iran’s nuclear file to the UN Security Council could follow, complicating any diplomatic track.

For Iran, enrichment is no longer just technical; it was a matter of national pride and sovereignty before the recent water shortages, which have become the bigger existential issue in recent months. Having paid a heavy price, Tehran is unlikely to abandon it outright. Yet, Tehran must balance this with the need to ease sanctions and avoid further isolation.

If talks resume, they will not simply be about nuclear enrichment. They will touch on regional security, Iran’s missile programme, and the broader balance of power in the Middle East. Oman’s mediation, Saudi Arabia’s new willingness to support dialogue, and Trump’s openness all point to a potential diplomatic window.

The challenge for Tehran is to engage without appearing to surrender, while Washington must decide whether compromise is preferable to continued confrontation.