OPINION:
Since 1979, America’s most consistent foe has been Iran. During the same span of time, the Soviet Union dissolved. Glasnost ensued. In North Korea, President Trump visited and attempted a reset. Small glimmers of hope have appeared from time to time in most U.S. trouble spots around the globe. Not in Iran, however. Since the fall of the shah, when American hostages were taken and held for 444 days, there has been no love lost between the two nations.
Some might suggest that when then-President Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, signed off on the ill-fated nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran, there was a momentary thaw in the frigid relationship. I would point out that on the exact day the agreement was entered into, Iran’s Supreme Leader was leading a crowd in chants of “Death to America.” Hardly the stuff friendships are developed from.
It should be no surprise then, that nearly 50 years into this adversarial chaos, the two sides are exchanging insults and appear to be on the verge of exchanging missiles. Mr. Trump was quoted as saying the United States will take “very strong action” against Iran if it executes protesters. He encouraged the Iranian people to continue their protests.
In response, Iran has said that if America takes action, all U.S. troops in the region are fair game for attack. They issued a stern warning to the United States, written in Russian. One would assume that is a veiled warning that the Iranians have the backing of the Russians in any conflict.
How did we arrive at this latest chapter?
Mr. Trump’s administration led a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025. Iran’s tepid response was to send missiles across the gulf to land near America’s military base in Qatar. That marked the end of that particular dust-up, but certainly not of hostilities.
It’s been a rough go of it lately for the sitting Iranian regime. The 12-day war with Israel. The near destruction of Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.S. bombing and now, the protests in the streets. Those unhappy with Iran’s current leadership are gleefully declaring the end is near. Regime change is just around the corner, they say. Is it though?
Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi led the talks between the U.S. and Iran last year. He visited Tehran earlier this week. I sat down with him immediately upon his return home. Contrary to the news reports out of the west, Mr. Al Busaidi told me, “I did not spot or feel that the country is in any kind of turmoil whatsoever. Business is as usual. Shops are open. Restaurants are open. The city is buzzing with vibration and cars and traffic.”
His comments are of essential importance because the United States is said to be hovering on the precipice of military action against Iran. If the Trump administration believes life throughout the Islamic republic is at a standstill and on the brink of collapse, the U.S. may be tempted to put its thumb on the scale in an effort to tip things over the edge. If the foreign minister of Oman’s observations are accurate, however, Mr. Trump’s calculations may be based on faulty math.
That makes the question of trust the key. Can we trust Oman? In a word, yes.
The friendship between the United States and Oman is long, storied and incredibly steady. It started in 1790 when an American ship sailed into the port of Muscat for the first time. Oman was the first Arab Gulf state to enter into a formal agreement with America, a formal trade agreement in 1833. They had the first Arab diplomat to become accredited in the United States in 1840. By 1880, the U.S. established its first consulate in Muscat with the stated goal of strengthening political and economic ties with Oman.
Equally important to the long friendship is Oman’s reputation as some of the finest diplomats in the world. There is a story that when the current sultan took his throne, he called in all of his top advisers and stood in front of a world map, waving his hand in its direction and said, “These are the countries we wish to be friends with.”
One adviser took the bait and asked, “Which countries?”
The sultan is said to have replied, “All of them.”
Oman lives up to that story and has for its entire history. The nation does not take sides, does not declare enemies and while clearly standing up against abuses of human rights, does not try to intervene with might. Instead, Oman believes communication, rational discussion and finding common ground is the preferred path. They have always walked the walk in this regard.
Mr. Al Busaidi summed it up to me this way, “Oman is currently a country at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbors and at peace and in friendship with every country on the globe, almost. I mean everybody. We are friends to all, and we really remain true to that principle.”
In November of 2025, Oman’s foreign minister gave a speech. He called on Iran to outwardly demonstrate it is not a threat, but instead is a committed partner in fostering Middle East regional stability and cooperation. Likewise, he called on the world to more seriously consider diplomatic and economic engagement as a way of including and encouraging Iran.
To military hawks, that may sound like naive wishes sprinkled in pixie dust. When you sit with the leadership of Oman, however, and when you study their history and success as the regional voice of reason, you begin to understand that there may be great substance in what they have to offer.
There have been widely varying reports of death as a result of the demonstrations in Iran. Following his visit, Oman’s foreign minister confirms there has been death, of both protesters and of those serving the regime. None of that is to be ignored. The real question is what action will inflame that and increase the death toll, and what action can quell the killing?
Mr. Al Busaidi shared an interesting tidbit with me. He told me that despite the public bluster, Iran desires a dialogue with the United States. He told me, “I am contemplating actually reaching out to our American friends to say, look, I was in Tehran. This is what happened. This is what I heard, you know? The ball is in your court. Please, if you care to respond to that, we’re happy to carry that response.”
He then offered advice to both nations, not unlike the wise counsel many parents might offer their teenage child. “My advice to both sides, please let us refrain from negotiating through the media, you know, by statements because … this will only escalate. It doesn’t solve the underlying problems of trust.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.