Global & US Headlines
Netanyahu Rushes to Washington After First U.S.–Iran Muscat Nuclear Talks
After U.S. envoys met Iran’s foreign minister in Muscat on 6 Feb 2026, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu pulled his White House visit forward a week to lobby President Trump against a nuclear-only deal.
Focusing Facts
- 6 Feb 2026: Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper held indirect talks with FM Abbas Araghchi in Oman—the first such contact since the June 2025 12-day war.
- 7 Feb 2026: Netanyahu asked to shift his meeting with Trump from 18 Feb to Wednesday 11 Feb, citing concern that missiles and proxy forces were excluded from the U.S.–Iran agenda.
- Reuters-briefed diplomats say Tehran demanded recognition of its ‘right to enrich’ and ruled missile restrictions ‘off the table’.
Context
This scramble echoes Henry Kissinger’s 1973 shuttle diplomacy, when regional actors raced to shape U.S.–Arab cease-fire terms before facts hardened, and it revives the 2013 back-channel Oman talks that birthed the JCPOA. The pattern is familiar: Washington alternates coercion—carrier groups, sanctions—with narrow nuclear bargains, while Israel seeks broader curbs on Iranian power projection. Over the last three decades, every détente (1994 Agreed Framework, 2015 JCPOA) emerged only when the U.S. signaled willingness to compartmentalize issues; allies then feared abandonment. Whether this week’s maneuvering becomes another milestone or a footnote depends on whether Trump accepts a limited pact: a signature could freeze enrichment for a few years yet cement Iran’s regional missile reach, reshaping Middle-East deterrence equilibriums well into the 22nd century. Conversely, failure could reset the cycle toward escalation, illustrating how great-power diplomacy still hinges on tight personal timetables and naval theatrics despite a century of multilateral institution-building.
Perspectives
Israeli conservative media
e.g., Israel Hayom — A narrowly-focused U.S.–Iran nuclear bargain would leave Tehran’s missiles and regional proxies untouched and therefore poses a grave, unacceptable risk to Israel’s security. Coverage is framed almost entirely through Israeli threat perceptions, overstating worst-case scenarios and giving scant weight to diplomatic de-escalation benefits that might contradict hard-line security narratives.
Trump-friendly Anglosphere outlets
e.g., NTD, Sky News — President Trump’s mix of tough military posturing and back-channel diplomacy is driving Iran toward a ‘very good’ deal and underscores U.S. leverage, with Wednesday’s White House meeting set to cement allied coordination. By echoing the administration’s talking points about success and strength, reports risk inflating diplomatic progress while downplaying escalation dangers and the possibility that Tehran’s red lines remain firmly in place.
Global South media sympathetic to Iran
e.g., The Hindu, Anadolu Ajansı — Tehran is standing firm on its sovereign right to enrich uranium and maintain defensive missiles while still showing willingness for a ‘fair and equitable’ deal if U.S. coercion and threats subside. Stories highlight U.S.–Israeli militarism and sanctions but gloss over Iran’s domestic repression and regional destabilisation, portraying the Islamic Republic largely as a besieged victim defending legitimate rights.