US-Iran Nuclear Talks End Without Deal, Oman Cites "Significant Progress
Despite the US-Iran nuclear talks concluding without an agreement, mediator Oman announced "significant progress." These two contradictory signals indicate a turning point where the security order of the entire Middle East is being reshaped amidst the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" strategy and Iran's accelerated nuclear development.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On February 26, 2026, high-level US-Iran talks regarding Iran's nuclear development concluded without reaching an agreement.
- • Mediator Oman announced "significant progress" and revealed that working-level talks would take place next week.
- • Following the conclusion of the talks, there has been no official reaction from the US government.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The US-Iran nuclear negotiations are at a crossroads where "spiral of conflict" and "overreach of power" intersect, forming a "chicken game" structure where both sides exert maximum pressure while trying to avoid catastrophe.
── Probability and Response ──────
🟡 Base 50% — Regular working-level talks, but no signs of an agreement document. US sanctions continue. Iran maintains 60% enrichment (without escalating to 90%). Oman's optimistic official statements continue.
🟢 Optimistic 20% — Positive tweets/statements from President Trump. Signs of Iran resuming cooperation with IAEA inspections. Iran-related price fluctuations in the crude oil futures market. Critical statements from Israel.
🔴 Pessimistic 30% — Announcement of strengthened US sanctions. Signs of Iran beginning 90% enrichment or an IAEA warning. Israeli military preparatory activities. Military tension around the Strait of Hormuz. Sharp rise in crude oil prices.
📡 THE SIGNAL — What Happened
Why it matters: Despite the US-Iran nuclear talks concluding without an agreement, mediator Oman announced "significant progress." These two contradictory signals indicate a turning point where the security order of the entire Middle East is being reshaped amidst the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" strategy and Iran's accelerated nuclear development.
- Talks Outcome — On February 26, 2026, high-level US-Iran talks regarding Iran's nuclear development concluded without reaching an agreement.
- Mediator's Assessment — Mediator Oman announced "significant progress" and revealed that working-level talks would take place next week.
- US Reaction — Following the conclusion of the talks, there has been no official reaction from the US government.
- Military Pressure — President Trump is intensifying military pressure, and his future stance is being closely watched.
- Negotiation Channel — Oman is serving as a mediator, acting as a "quiet diplomatic channel" between the US and Iran.
- Nuclear Development Status — Iran's uranium enrichment has reached the 60% level, and it is technically possible to reach weapons-grade 90% in a short period.
- JCPOA Background — Since the Trump administration's first term withdrew from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) in 2018, US-Iran relations have entered a spiral of conflict.
- Sanctions Status — The US maintains comprehensive economic sanctions against Iran, including oil exports, and pressure on the Iranian economy continues.
- Regional Situation — The activities of Iran's proxy forces (such as Hezbollah and the Houthis) in the Middle East are escalating tensions with the US.
- Talks Format — A phased approach is being adopted, transitioning from high-level direct talks to working-level technical discussions.
- IAEA Monitoring — The IAEA's monitoring and inspection regime has been significantly restricted since the JCPOA withdrawal, reducing the transparency of Iran's nuclear activities.
- Impact on Crude Oil Market — The success or failure of the talks directly impacts global crude oil supply, with Iran's potential to export over 2 million barrels per day being a market focus.
The history of US-Iran nuclear negotiations is a repetition of agreements and abrogations, pressure and concessions, and this "progress without agreement" is also an extension of that structural pattern.
The story dates back to 2002. Secret nuclear facilities were exposed in Natanz and Arak, forcing the international community to confront Iran's nuclear ambitions for the first time. Subsequently, the UN Security Council gradually strengthened sanctions, adopting six resolutions between 2006 and 2010. However, sanctions alone did not halt Iran's nuclear development. Iran continued to increase the number of centrifuges and steadily improved its enrichment technology.
In 2013, a turning point arrived. Moderate President Rouhani took office, and "quiet diplomacy" began with the Obama administration. Crucial here was Oman's role. Sultan Qaboos of Oman (then) provided a secret negotiation channel between the US and Iran from 2012, arranging a discreet venue for high-level officials from both countries to engage in dialogue. Without this "Oman Channel," the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) would not have materialized.
The JCPOA temporarily "froze" the issue. Iran limited its enrichment level to 3.67%, reduced centrifuges, and accepted strict IAEA inspections. In return, sanctions were lifted, and Iran's crude oil exports recovered to 2.5 million barrels per day. However, this balance was fragile.
In May 2018, President Trump (first term) announced a unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA. Calling it the "worst deal ever," Trump criticized Iran's ballistic missile development and proxy wars in the region, demanding a "comprehensive new agreement." However, negotiations for a new agreement never materialized, and instead, a "maximum pressure" policy was implemented. Iran's crude oil exports plummeted to near zero, and its economy suffered severe damage.
Iran's response was predictable. From 2019, it gradually violated its JCPOA obligations, increasing uranium enrichment to 20% and then to 60%. The technical distance from 60% to weapons-grade 90% is extremely short, and IAEA Director General Grossi repeatedly sounded the alarm. Furthermore, Iran removed IAEA surveillance cameras and restricted access for inspectors. A vicious cycle emerged where increasing nuclear opacity led to greater pressure for military options.
The Biden administration attempted to return to the JCPOA, but intermittent negotiations until 2022 ultimately collapsed. Iran's domestic politics (the 2022 protests and their suppression, the rise of hardliners), the issue of drone supply to Russia, and escalating tensions with Israel worsened the negotiation environment.
In 2025, Trump was re-elected president and declared "Maximum Pressure 2.0." Interestingly, however, Trump has not completely closed the door to negotiations despite applying pressure. This reveals Trump's essence as a "dealmaker." And once again, Oman emerged as a mediator. The February 2026 talks are precisely the product of this "dual strategy of pressure and dialogue."
Why now? Several structural factors are converging. First, Iran's nuclear development is bringing its "breakout time" (the time needed to produce a nuclear weapon) effectively to zero, and the window for a diplomatic solution is closing. Second, the geopolitical realignment in the Middle East (tensions with Israel, changing relations with Saudi Arabia, China's purchase of Iranian crude oil) complicates the negotiation backdrop. Third, crude oil market trends are directly linked to the Trump administration's domestic politics, and the resumption of Iranian oil supply could also serve as an inflation countermeasure for the US. These dynamics intertwine, creating the contradictory state of "progress without agreement."
The delta: High-level direct US-Iran talks concluded "without agreement," but the mediating country's assessment of "significant progress" and the announcement of a transition to working-level talks suggest that US-Iran relations may have entered a phase of "managed tension" from a "spiral of conflict." However, the absence of an official reaction from the US government indicates internal policy disagreements within the Trump administration, making the sustainability of this "progress" highly uncertain.
🔍 BETWEEN THE LINES — What the News Isn't Saying
What official reports aren't conveying is the Trump administration's dual strategy behind this "progress without agreement." Maintaining negotiation channels while fronting military pressure serves not only as leverage against Iran but also as a tool for managing crude oil prices. The very "existence" of negotiations suppresses the geopolitical premium in the crude oil market, contributing to Trump's inflation countermeasures. Furthermore, the US government's "absence" of an official reaction is not silence but a calculation—allowing Oman to declare "progress" demonstrates the value of negotiations while committing to nothing itself. This is a Trumpian "optionality" strategy, creating a structure that can be framed as either a "diplomatic victory" or a "pretext for increased pressure" depending on the outcome.
NOW PATTERN
Spiral of Conflict × Overreach of Power × Failure of Coordination
The US-Iran nuclear negotiations are at a crossroads where "spiral of conflict" and "overreach of power" intersect, forming a "chicken game" structure where both sides exert maximum pressure while trying to avoid catastrophe.
Intersection of Dynamics
"Spiral of Conflict," "Overreach of Power," "Failure of Coordination" — these three dynamics do not operate independently but form a system that mutually reinforces itself.
First, **the "spiral of conflict" entrenches the "failure of coordination."** Eight years of escalation have pushed mutual distrust to its extreme, destroying the foundation of trust necessary for agreement. Iran's perception that "the US does not keep its promises" (memory of JCPOA withdrawal) and the US's perception that "Iran does not adhere to agreements" (gradual violation of JCPOA obligations) are entrenched, meaning **any proposed agreement is evaluated through the filter of "the other side will not uphold it."**
Next, **the "overreach of power" prevents departure from the "spiral of conflict."** The structure where both sides maintain maximum demands and cannot back down sustains the negotiation deadlock. As long as Trump continues to demand "complete denuclearization," Iran has no incentive to negotiate. As long as Iran continues 60% enrichment, the US has no incentive to ease sanctions.
And finally, **the "failure of coordination" further exacerbates the "overreach of power."** By failing to agree, both sides increasingly rely on the "logic of force," such as military displays, strengthened sanctions, and accelerated nuclear development, continuously depleting limited resources.
However, the "progress without agreement" that emerged from these talks may have created a small crack in this vicious cycle. The presence of a third party, Oman, partially alleviates the "failure of coordination," and the transition to working-level talks could be the beginning of a "deceleration of the spiral." **However, history teaches that such cracks are easily repaired, and the vicious cycle restarts.** A true turning point requires a "package deal" that simultaneously addresses all three dynamics, but such a comprehensive agreement is extremely difficult at present.
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
2003-2005: Early Negotiations on the Iranian Nuclear Issue (EU3+Iran)
Europe (UK, France, Germany) negotiated directly with Iran, agreeing to a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment in the Tehran Declaration and the Paris Agreement. However, the agreement collapsed due to a change of government in Iran (Ahmadinejad's inauguration).
Structural similarities with the present: Diplomatic "progress" is easily overturned by domestic political changes in the opposing country. The sustainability of an agreement depends on domestic political consensus.
2012-2015: From Oman Secret Negotiation Channel to JCPOA Formation
Sultan Qaboos of Oman mediated secret US-Iran negotiations. After several years of "quiet diplomacy," this evolved into formal P5+1 negotiations, leading to the formation of the JCPOA in 2015.
Structural similarities with the present: Secret negotiations through a trusted mediator can eliminate domestic political noise and lead to substantive progress. However, it took over three years to reach an agreement.
2018-2019: JCPOA Withdrawal and the Start of "Maximum Pressure"
After the Trump administration's first term withdrew from the JCPOA, it presented Iran with "12 conditions," but the conditions were too stringent, and negotiations never began. Instead, military escalation occurred, including tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Saudi oil facilities.
Structural similarities with the present: The "maximum pressure" strategy creates negotiation leverage, but at the same time, pushing the opponent too far can lead to military escalation. Pressure that does not offer an "exit" can be counterproductive.
1994: US-DPRK Agreed Framework
Regarding North Korea's nuclear development, after the Clinton administration went to the brink of military action, a framework agreement was reached through former President Carter's "private diplomacy." However, the agreement ultimately collapsed, and North Korea became a nuclear power.
Structural similarities with the present: Agreements with nuclear-developing states are not sustainable without verification mechanisms and domestic political stability. The "existence of an agreement" and its "effectiveness" are separate issues.
1978-1979: Camp David Accords (Egypt-Israel)
Direct negotiations between President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin would not have succeeded without President Carter's mediation. The mediator's persistent arbitration enabled substantive compromises while allowing both sides to save "face."
Structural similarities with the present: A trusted mediator is essential for agreements between two hostile nations. The mediator plays a role in providing a framing that allows both sides to explain domestically that they "made concessions."
Patterns Revealed by History
What emerges from historical patterns is that nuclear negotiations adhere to three structural laws. First, **the presence of a trusted mediator is a prerequisite for negotiations.** Without the Oman secret channel from 2012-2015, the JCPOA would not have materialized, and the Camp David Accords would have been impossible without Carter's mediation. Oman's renewed role in the current situation is consistent with this historical pattern.
Second, **nuclear negotiations are a "marathon," not a "sprint."** It took three years from the start of secret negotiations and two years from the start of formal negotiations for the JCPOA to be established. This "progress without agreement" is likely only the very initial stage of a long negotiation process.
Third, and most ominous, is that **agreements in nuclear negotiations carry an extremely high risk of collapse.** The JCPOA collapsed in just three years, and the US-DPRK Agreed Framework met a similar fate. Even if some agreement is reached, there is no guarantee of its sustainability. This does not imply the futility of negotiations but rather that **"collapse resilience" must be incorporated into the design of any agreement.**
🔮 NEXT SCENARIOS
Working-level talks will proceed as scheduled in March but will not lead to a fundamental agreement. Both the US and Iran will maintain the signal that they are "at the negotiating table" while engaging in "delaying diplomacy" that avoids substantive concessions for several months.
The Trump administration will maintain negotiations with Iran but will not ease its "maximum pressure" policy. Sanctions will remain in place, as will the US military presence in the Middle East. Iran will continue 60% enrichment but will refrain from escalating to 90%. Relations with the IAEA may see minor improvements, but full access will not be restored.
Oman will continue to serve as a mediator, with high-level talks occurring every few months, but no breakthrough will happen. The impact on the crude oil market will be limited, with geopolitical premiums remaining at current levels. This state of "managed stalemate" is likely to continue until US domestic political events (such as midterm elections). Ultimately, the very fact that both sides are "negotiating" acts as a safety valve to avoid military conflict.
Implications for Investment/Action: Regular working-level talks, but no signs of an agreement document. US sanctions continue. Iran maintains 60% enrichment (without escalating to 90%). Oman's optimistic official statements continue.
President Trump, leveraging his "dealmaker" instincts, shows a positive stance towards an interim deal with Iran. Iran accepts a temporary halt to 60% enrichment and partial restoration of IAEA inspections, and the US agrees to some sanctions relief (such as phased unfreezing of assets).
The key to the optimistic scenario lies in adopting a "phased approach." Instead of aiming for a comprehensive agreement like the JCPOA all at once, it involves accumulating small confidence-building measures. For example, Iran could agree to reinstall IAEA surveillance cameras, and in return, sanctions related to humanitarian goods (medicine, food) could be eased. If such "mini-deals" materialize, they could pave the way for a larger agreement.
The crude oil market would welcome this scenario, and crude oil prices could fall by 5-10% due to expectations of a phased resumption of Iranian oil supply. This would also be favorable for the Trump administration as an inflation countermeasure, with domestic political incentives bolstering an agreement. However, strong opposition from Israel and criticism in the US Congress would be unavoidable, leaving concerns about the agreement's sustainability.
Implications for Investment/Action: Positive tweets/statements from President Trump. Signs of Iran resuming cooperation with IAEA inspections. Iran-related price fluctuations in the crude oil futures market. Critical statements from Israel.
Working-level talks collapse, and US-Iran relations rapidly deteriorate. The Trump administration begins openly discussing military options against Iran's nuclear facilities, and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East escalate sharply.
Several triggers could lead to a pessimistic scenario. First, if Iran begins 90% enrichment during negotiations, the US could immediately break off talks and transition to a military response. Second, if Iranian proxy forces (Houthis or Hezbollah) attack US forces or US allies, the negotiation environment would fundamentally collapse. Third, if Israel unilaterally attacks Iran's nuclear facilities (which cannot be ruled out given Israeli military action patterns post-2025), the entire region could be drawn into conflict.
In this scenario, crude oil prices would surge, with Brent crude potentially exceeding $100 per barrel. Navigation risks in the Strait of Hormuz would increase, directly threatening global energy security. Financial markets would re-evaluate the "Middle East risk premium," accelerating a risk-off movement. In the worst case, a limited US military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities could be executed, but there is a risk that Iran's retaliatory actions could trigger a chain of escalation.
Implications for Investment/Action: Announcement of strengthened US sanctions. Signs of Iran beginning 90% enrichment or an IAEA warning. Israeli military preparatory activities. Military tension around the Strait of Hormuz. Sharp rise in crude oil prices.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Holding and outcome of US-Iran working-level talks: First-second week of March 2026 (announced for next week)
- President Trump's official reaction regarding Iran nuclear negotiations: February 27 - March 1, 2026 (immediately after the talks)
- Discussions/resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue at the IAEA Board of Governors: March 2026 (next regular Board meeting)
- IAEA report on changes in Iran's uranium enrichment level: March-April 2026 (quarterly report)
- Military escalation in the Middle East (proxy activities, Strait of Hormuz tensions): Continuous monitoring
🔄 TRACKING LOOP
Next Trigger: US-Iran working-level talks (First-second week of March 2026) — The first turning point to see if the "significant progress" from high-level talks takes shape as concrete agreement items, or if negotiations become formalized but hollow.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: The Future of US-Iran Nuclear Negotiations — Next milestones are the IAEA Board of Governors discussion on the Iranian nuclear issue in March and the possibility of an interim agreement by summer 2026.
>How do you read this? Participate in Prediction →
