The Illusion of Indirect Diplomacy
When Al Jazeera reports that Iranian and US officials are meeting 'separately' with an Omani mediator, it reinforces a perception of rigid non-engagement between two states that, in reality, maintain various forms of contact. This framing is designed to manage domestic political sensitivities in Washington and Tehran, neither of which can afford to be seen as directly negotiating with an
adversary. THE CLAIM: Indirect talks via Oman are a necessary diplomatic channel for communication between the US and Iran. THE EVIDENCE: The historical record indicates that direct, albeit covert, communication between the US and Iran predates and often underpins these 'indirect' engagements. For example, the US and Iran engaged in direct, high-level talks during the 2003 Iraq War regarding
regional stability (Guardian, 2006). More prominently, the initial phase of the negotiations that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) were direct, secret discussions held in Oman itself, beginning as early as 2009-2010 (The New York Times, 2014). This contradicts the idea that Oman is merely a conduit for messages rather than a facilitator of actual, if unadvertised, bilateral
dialogue. THE CONTRADICTIONS: The public reiteration of 'indirect' talks overlooks the sustained, operational-level contacts that have characterized US-Iran relations, especially in managing incidents in the Persian Gulf and Iraq. The notion that communication only occurs through a third party presents an anachronistic view of modern statecraft, particularly between powers with a shared, complex