Quick Read
- Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi stated a US-Iran nuclear deal was ‘within reach’ on Feb 27, 2026.
- Albusaidi revealed Iran had agreed to ‘zero stockpiling’ of nuclear material, a new concession beyond the 2015 deal.
- President Trump launched military strikes on Iran on Feb 28, 2026, claiming Iran rejected nuclear disarmament efforts.
- Critics and international law experts condemned Trump’s actions, citing Albusaidi’s statements as proof diplomacy was preempted.
- Iran retaliated with drone and missile attacks on Israel and vowed to target US regional military installations.
WASHINGTON (Azat TV) – Just hours before President Donald Trump announced a massive military operation against Iran on Saturday, February 28, 2026, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi publicly declared that a diplomatic breakthrough on a US-Iran nuclear deal was ‘within reach.’ Albusaidi, who had been mediating recent talks, made the surprising revelation on a prominent US television news program, directly contradicting President Trump’s subsequent justification for the strikes that Iran had rejected all diplomatic avenues.
During his appearance on ‘Face the Nation’ on Friday, Albusaidi conveyed significant progress in negotiations, stating, ‘I can see that the peace deal is within our reach.’ He urged all parties to continue the process, emphasizing that ‘we have already achieved quite a substantial progress in the direction of a deal. And the heart of this deal is very important, and I think we have captured that heart.’
Diplomatic Breakthrough on Nuclear Material
Pressed for specifics by host Margaret Brennan, Foreign Minister Albusaidi detailed a critical concession from Iran: a commitment to renounce the possibility of amassing ‘nuclear material that will create a bomb.’ This pledge, he highlighted, was a new development not present in the 2015 nuclear accord (JCPOA) that Trump abandoned during his first term.
‘This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,’ Albusaidi explained. He further clarified, ‘There is no accumulation, so there would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification… Full and comprehensive verification by the [International Atomic Energy Agency].’ This level of commitment, he argued, would effectively prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, regardless of enrichment capabilities.
Trump’s Strikes and Conflicting Narratives
Albusaidi’s public statements on Friday stood in stark contrast to President Trump’s declaration on Saturday morning, which cited Iran’s alleged refusal to renounce its nuclear ambitions as a primary reason for launching ‘Operation Epic Fury.’ Trump falsely claimed that the Iranian government had ‘rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions’ as US and Israeli bombs began falling on Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Prior to the strikes, additional US-Iran talks had been scheduled for the following week.
Critics, including Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, quickly pointed to Albusaidi’s interview as evidence that the military actions were aimed at forestalling a diplomatic resolution. Parsi noted the Omanis’ reputation for caution, calling Albusaidi’s public disclosure ‘quite unprecedented’ and suggesting it was intended to inform the American public that peace was achievable before Trump opted for war.
International Condemnation and Regional Fallout
The US and Israeli attacks, characterized by both nations as ‘preemptive,’ immediately drew international condemnation. Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, denounced the ‘aggression against Iran’ as a ‘violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force.’
In response to the ‘criminal aggression,’ the Iranian Foreign Ministry vowed ‘crushing retaliation’ and appealed to the United Nations Security Council for emergency action, stating that the assault represented ‘a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter.’ Hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as Iran launched drone and missile attacks. Iran’s foreign minister also informed his Iraqi counterpart that US military installations in the region would be targeted in retaliation.
The Role of Omani Mediation
Oman has historically played a crucial role as a neutral mediator in regional conflicts, particularly between the US and Iran. Foreign Minister Albusaidi’s decision to go public with the details of the negotiations was seen by observers like Trita Parsi as a desperate attempt to prevent an impending conflict by revealing the substantial progress made. Parsi highlighted that the achieved terms ‘go way beyond what Obama achieved’ with the 2015 nuclear deal, suggesting a path for Trump to claim a diplomatic victory had he chosen to pursue it.
The timing of Foreign Minister Albusaidi’s revelation, immediately preceding President Trump’s military strikes, underscores a significant divergence between diplomatic efforts and military action, suggesting that a negotiated resolution was actively sidelined in favor of conflict.