Analysis of: US and Iran set for further talks in Oman amid Trump’s military threats – live
The Guardian | February 6, 2026
TL;DR
US-Iran talks in Oman occur under threat of American military strike, revealing how imperial powers use 'diplomacy' as coercive leverage. Sanctions have devastated Iranian workers while enriching arms manufacturers—whatever deal emerges serves capital, not people.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The US-Iran negotiations in Oman exemplify the fundamental contradiction at the heart of imperial diplomacy: talks conducted under explicit military threat cannot produce genuine peace, only managed subordination. The Trump administration's positioning of an 'armada' near Iranian waters while simultaneously claiming to pursue diplomatic solutions reveals the coercive nature of capitalist great-power relations. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt's reminder that the president has 'many options at his disposal, aside from diplomacy, as the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the history of the world' strips away any pretense of negotiation between equals. The material stakes illuminate why this confrontation intensifies now. Iran's economy has been devastated by sanctions—as expert Fawaz Gerges notes, sanctions have 'broken the backbone of the Iranian economy' and 'pauperised the Iranian people.' This economic warfare has achieved what military action could not: creating mass protests that 'threaten the very viability and survival of the regime.' The US demands—covering nuclear programs, ballistic missiles, and regional proxies—would effectively disarm Iran entirely, leaving it 'naked in the face of any future Israeli attacks.' For the Iranian ruling class, the choice is between economic collapse and strategic surrender. Yet the article's framing obscures the class dimensions entirely. Iranian workers suffering under sanctions and facing regime violence during protests have interests distinct from both the clerical establishment and American imperialism. The tens of thousands killed in government crackdowns died not defending 'Iran' but challenging their own ruling class. Meanwhile, American workers gain nothing from military deployments that enrich defense contractors while draining public resources. The 'national interests' invoked by both sides serve their respective ruling classes while working people on both sides bear the costs of sanctions, military buildup, and potential war.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US capitalist state and military apparatus, Iranian theocratic ruling class, US defense industry and military contractors, Iranian working class and protesters, Gulf state monarchies (Oman as mediator), Regional proxy forces (Hezbollah, Houthis), Israeli state
Beneficiaries: US defense contractors profiting from military buildup, US financial capital benefiting from sanctions enforcement, Israeli ruling class seeking regional dominance, Iranian regime if sanctions relief achieved, Gulf monarchies maintaining regional stability
Harmed Parties: Iranian working class devastated by sanctions, Iranian protesters killed in government crackdowns, American workers funding military deployments, Regional civilian populations facing potential war, Lebanese and Yemeni populations affected by proxy conflicts
The negotiations occur within a radically asymmetric power structure. The US possesses overwhelming military superiority and controls global financial systems that enable sanctions enforcement. Iran's only leverage—its nuclear program and regional proxies—are precisely what the US demands it surrender. This asymmetry means 'negotiation' functions as managed capitulation rather than mutual agreement. Meanwhile, the Iranian working class, whose protests destabilized the regime, has no seat at the table despite bearing the greatest costs of both sanctions and potential conflict.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: US sanctions devastating Iranian economy, Frozen Iranian financial assets in US institutions, Oil and energy resources underlying regional control, Defense industry profits from military buildup, Global supply chain disruptions from regional instability
The confrontation centers on control over production and exchange. Sanctions function as economic warfare by excluding Iran from global commodity and financial circuits—denying access to the international division of labor that modern production requires. The demand to dismantle ballistic missiles addresses productive capacity itself: the ability to manufacture deterrent weapons. Meanwhile, the massive US military deployment represents the physical concentration of accumulated capital in destructive form, funded by extraction from American workers through taxation.
Resources at Stake: Iranian oil and gas reserves, Control of Persian Gulf shipping lanes, Nuclear enrichment infrastructure, Ballistic missile production capabilities, Frozen Iranian assets (tens of billions), Regional political influence
Historical Context
Precedents: 1953 CIA-backed coup overthrowing Mosaddegh, 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal and 2018 US withdrawal, Iraq War 'weapons of mass destruction' justifications, Libya's disarmament followed by regime change, Historical pattern of gunboat diplomacy
This confrontation follows the well-established pattern of American imperial management of the Middle East since World War II. The region's oil resources make it strategically vital to global capitalism, requiring US hegemony over regional states. Iran's 1979 revolution removed a key client state, and subsequent decades have seen continuous efforts to restore subordination through sanctions, isolation, and military threat. The current moment represents intensified pressure during a period of relative US decline and multipolar emergence—the Russia-Iran partnership mentioned in the article signals alternative alignments that threaten American dominance. Trump's explicit threats echo the 'madman theory' of coercive diplomacy, while the substance of demands mirrors the maximum pressure campaigns that have defined US-Iran relations since 1979.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is between imperial demands for total Iranian disarmament and Iran's need for deterrent capability to survive as an independent state. Full compliance with US demands would leave Iran defenseless against future aggression (as Libya's fate demonstrated), while resistance risks devastating military attack. Neither outcome serves Iranian working people—only which ruling class dominates.
Secondary: Contradiction between 'diplomatic' framing and explicit military coercion, Contradiction between claimed concern for Iranian protesters and sanctions that devastate those same people, Iranian regime's contradiction between survival through compromise and legitimacy through resistance, US contradiction between demanding democracy abroad while supporting regional autocracies, Contradiction between 'national interest' rhetoric and class-specific benefits of war/peace
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution. If Iran capitulates substantially, internal regime legitimacy collapses further while providing no guarantee against future demands—each concession invites more. If Iran resists, military escalation becomes likely, potentially triggering regional war with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The deeper contradiction—between imperial control and genuine self-determination—cannot be resolved within the current framework. Only transformation of the underlying class relations in both societies could create conditions for genuine peace rather than managed subordination.
Global Interconnections
This confrontation cannot be understood apart from broader shifts in global capitalist hegemony. The Russia-Iran strategic partnership represents emerging multipolarity challenging US dominance—itself a response to declining American productive supremacy relative to rising powers. Control of Middle Eastern energy resources remains strategically vital not only for direct profit but for leverage over European and Asian competitors dependent on these supplies. The sanctions regime demonstrates how financial dominance substitutes for productive leadership: the US can exclude nations from global trade not through competitive superiority but through control of payment systems and reserve currency status. The regional dimension reveals interconnected ruling-class interests across national boundaries. Gulf monarchies, Israeli capital, and American empire share interests in containing Iranian influence and suppressing popular movements throughout the region. The 2011 Arab Spring and subsequent counterrevolutions demonstrated this alignment clearly. Iranian support for 'proxies' like Hezbollah and the Houthis—whatever one's assessment of these movements—represents the only regional counterweight to this bloc. The demand to end such support would consolidate US-Israeli-Gulf hegemony entirely, with profound implications for Palestinian liberation and regional self-determination.
Conclusion
The Oman negotiations reveal the violence inherent in capitalist international relations, where 'diplomacy' functions as war by other means. For working people in both the US and Iran, the outcome matters less than it appears: whether through continued sanctions, military strike, or negotiated surrender, ordinary people bear the costs while ruling classes negotiate the terms of their respective extractions. The Iranian protesters killed by their own government sought neither American bombs nor clerical rule—they sought liberation from both. Genuine internationalist solidarity requires opposing both US imperial aggression and Iranian state repression, recognizing that workers in both countries share interests against their respective rulers. The path forward lies not in choosing between imperial powers but in building connections across borders that challenge the system producing endless wars for profit and control.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how capitalist powers divide the world into spheres of influence, using both economic and military coercion, directly illuminates US policy toward Iran and the broader Middle East.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's examination of how crises—including military threats and economic sanctions—are leveraged to impose unfavorable terms on weaker nations parallels the US strategy of maximum pressure against Iran.
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (1961) Fanon's analysis of colonial violence and the psychology of domination helps explain both imperial coercion and the complex position of Iranian masses caught between their own regime and foreign aggression.