The American superpower has lost control of its foreign policy, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Oman

At two different times within nine months, the United States and Iran were on the brink of reaching a real agreement on their most divisive issue: the Iranian nuclear program and American fears that it may be for weaponization. It was a shock, but not a surprise, when on February 28, just a few hours after the latest substantial negotiations, Israel and the United States once again launched an illegal military strike against the peace that had briefly seemed truly possible.

Source: The Economist, Badr Albusaidi Translated by readers of Les-Crises website

The response from Iran to what it portrays as American targets located in its neighbors’ territory was an inevitable outcome, although deeply regrettable and totally unacceptable. Faced with what Israel and the United States described as a war aimed at ending the Islamic Republic, it was probably the only rational option for Iranian leaders.

The effects of these retaliations are most acutely felt in the southern part of the Gulf, where Arab countries that had relied on American security cooperation now see this cooperation as a serious vulnerability, threatening their current security and future prosperity.

Gulf states that had bet on an economic model involving sports, tourism, aviation, and technology on a global scale now see this model under threat. The repercussions of Iran’s retaliatory measures are being felt globally, with disruptions in maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz causing energy prices to rise and the threat of a deep recession looming. If the instigators of this war did not anticipate this, it is undoubtedly a serious miscalculation.

The biggest misanalysis by the American administration was to be dragged into this war. It is not the war of the United States, and there is no plausible scenario in which both Israel and the United States could achieve what they want. It is hoped that the U.S. commitment to regime change remains purely rhetorical, while Israel openly seeks to overthrow the Islamic Republic and probably cares little about how the country will be governed, or by whom, once this goal is achieved.

In this perspective, Israeli leaders seem to have convinced the United States that Iran was so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions, and American-Israeli strikes on its nuclear sites last June that an unconditional surrender would quickly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the Supreme Leader. But it should now be clear that for Israel to achieve its declared goal, a long military campaign will be needed, forcing the United States to engage troops on the ground, thus opening a new front in these endless wars that President Donald Trump had previously pledged to end. This is not what the American government wants. Nor does the American population, which certainly does not see this as their war.

The question facing America’s friends is simple. What can we do to extricate the United States from this inextricable situation? First and foremost, America’s friends have a duty to speak the truth. This starts with the fact that there are two parties in this war that have nothing to gain, and the national interests of both Iran and America lie in ending hostilities as quickly as possible. This is a difficult truth to speak, as it involves showing how much America has lost control of its foreign policy. But it must be said.

American leaders will then have to determine where their national interests truly lie and act accordingly. A clear assessment of these interests would undoubtedly lead to a definitive and decisive end to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, ensuring the security of energy supply chains, and creating new investment opportunities given the region’s growing economic importance on the world stage. Peace between Iran and its neighbors is the best way to achieve all these goals. These goals could arguably be seen as common objectives for all Gulf countries. The challenge is to find the path that will lead to an exit from the current catastrophe.

Returning to bilateral negotiations that have been sidelined twice by the sirens of war may prove difficult for the United States. It will certainly be challenging for Iranian leaders to resume dialogue with an administration that has abruptly shifted from talks to bombings and assassinations twice. But the path to escaping war, however difficult for both parties, may perhaps lie precisely in this resumption of negotiations.

Considering positive energy

The parties need an incentive to find the courage needed to resume dialogue. This could be done by incorporating essential bilateral negotiations to resolve the central dispute between the United States and Iran into a broader regional process aimed at establishing a framework of transparency on nuclear energy, and more generally, energy transition in the region. As all countries in the region look towards a shared post-carbon future, innovation and development can only be safely achieved if a minimum agreement is reached on the role nuclear technologies will play.

Could this perspective be an attractive enough stake for all major actors to fully commit to facing the challenges of dialogue together and winning it together? This is certainly a path that Oman and its neighbors in the Gulf Cooperation Council could propose. Preliminary discussions could eventually lead to measures to restore confidence and consensus on the role nuclear energy should play in the energy transition. It is certainly impossible to determine the final outcome of such a process, especially in the midst of war. But is it possible, perhaps within the framework of a regional non-aggression treaty, to conclude a substantial regional agreement on nuclear transparency?

Badr Albusaidi is Oman’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He played a mediating role in the recent nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Source: The Economist, Badr Albusaidi, 18-03-2026 Translated by readers of Les-Crises website