'Grave miscalculation': Why Oman flagged US foreign policy misstep in Iran

Oman's foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, has said that the United States allowed itself to be drawn into a war that could have been avoided through diplomacy

As the war involving the United States (US), Israel, and Iran continues with no end in sight, the conflict has already spilled across the Gulf, and put critical energy infrastructure and shipping routes at risk. And in this widening theatre, one Gulf country has chosen to come out and say publicly what many diplomats, foreign policy experts, and analysts have been whispering in closed circles; that Washington and Tel Aviv may have started the conflict without a clearly defined exit strategy. Oman, which has long positioned itself as a quiet mediator in the region, has now put across that concern in unusually direct terms, questioning both the timing and the direction of US decision-making.

 

 

Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi on Wednesday (March 18) wrote a column in The Economist, where he argued that the US allowed itself to be drawn into a war that could have been avoided through diplomacy.

 

“The American administration’s greatest miscalculation, of course, was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place. This is not America’s war, and there is no likely scenario in which both Israel and America will get what they want from it,” he said.

 

According to Albusaidi, the US and Iran were engaged in substantive nuclear negotiations in Geneva in February. He described those talks as meaningful and said a deal was within reach. Within hours of that round of negotiations, however, the US and Israel launched military strikes on Iran.

 

“It was a shock but not a surprise when on 28 February – just a few hours after the latest and most substantive talks – Israel and America again launched an unlawful military strike against the peace that had briefly appeared really possible,” Albusaidi wrote in his column.

 

For Oman, this sequence suggests a breakdown in strategic decision-making. Albusaidi’s argument is not that the US lacks capacity, but that it ceded control of its diplomatic trajectory at a critical moment.

 

What role was Oman playing in US-Iran nuclear talks 

Oman has long positioned itself as a neutral mediator between Washington and Tehran, including providing a discreet venue and facilitating indirect negotiations between the two sides.

 

Oman hosted secret backchannel discussions that paved the way for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That history has given it credibility with both sides, particularly because it maintains working relations with Iran while also engaging closely with the US.

 

Why Oman sees US policy in Iran as externally influenced 

A notable element of Albusaidi’s critique is his claim that Israel’s leadership influenced Washington’s decision to enter the conflict. He described the US decision to join military action as its “greatest miscalculation”, arguing that the war was “not America’s war”.

 

“... Israel’s leadership seems to have persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader,” he wrote.

 

Israel rejected this claim on Thursday, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that no external actor dictates US decisions. “Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do?” Netanyahu said.

 

But Oman’s position reflects a broader concern among Gulf states that US regional policy is increasingly reactive and shaped by immediate security alignments rather than longer-term diplomatic strategy.

 

Oman’s relationship with Iran 

Oman has maintained stable and open relations with Iran, unlike several of its Gulf neighbours since the Pahlavi era. The two countries share maritime borders and have steadily expanded cooperation across energy, finance and security. The two sides have discussed a plan to ship Iranian natural gas to Oman through an undersea pipeline, alongside joint work on gas-field development and a proposed petrochemicals project.

 

Their engagement also extends beyond energy. Both countries run a joint bank and have put in place customs and border mechanisms to ease trade flows. On the security front, Oman and Iran have held joint military exercises and signed agreements covering maritime security and anti-smuggling operations in the Gulf of Oman, pointing to a functional level of coordination.

 

This relationship allows Oman to act as a channel of communication when tensions rise. It has avoided direct confrontation with Tehran and has often advocated de-escalation in regional disputes, including during periods of heightened US-Iran tensions.

 

“Could this offer a prize large enough for all the main players to willingly endure the difficulties of dialogue to win it together? It is certainly something Oman and its Gulf Co-operation Council neighbours can propose. Some initial talks could lead over time to confidence-building measures and a consensus around the role nuclear energy should play in the energy transition,” Albusaidi said. 

 

What are Oman’s ties with the US and Israel? 

Oman has longstanding strategic ties with the US, including defence cooperation agreements and access arrangements for US forces. These ties have coexisted with its independent regional diplomacy, allowing Muscat to maintain a degree of neutrality.

 

With Israel, Oman’s engagement has been limited but not absent. There have been periods of quiet diplomatic contact, including high-level visits in recent years. However, Oman has not normalised relations with Israel, especially since the beginning of Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2023-24 and the hardening of Israel’s stance under Netanyahu, and has continued to support a two-state solution.

 

What Oman’s open admission mean for the Gulf region 

Albusaidi has warned that the current conflict risks becoming prolonged, with no clear outcome that satisfies all sides. He has also described the strikes as potentially violating international law, adding a legal dimension to Oman’s critique.

 

For Gulf countries, the concern is more immediate and serious. Any more escalation of the conflict threatens energy flows, shipping routes and regional stability. Thus, Oman’s position reflects a wider unease: that a diplomatic opening was lost, and that the region is now dealing with the consequences of that shift.