‘Grave Miscalculation’ — Oman Points to the Hidden Driver of America’s War on Iran

By Palestine Chronicle Staff

Oman’s foreign minister warns the US has lost strategic control, drawn into Israel’s war, calling for an urgent return to diplomacy.

Key Takeaways

• Oman says US-Israeli strikes derailed advanced nuclear talks with Iran, undermining a rare diplomatic opening.

• Albusaidi suggests Washington was drawn into a war shaped by Israeli objectives, not its own national interests.

• Oman rejects normalization with Israel and positions itself as a key diplomatic channel for ending the conflict.

A Mediator’s Warning

In a rare and unusually direct intervention, Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, has publicly challenged Washington’s role in the escalating war with Iran, warning that the United States has “lost control of its own foreign policy.”

Writing in The Economist on March 18, Albusaidi’s remarks carry particular weight. Oman has long served as the primary backchannel mediator between Tehran and Washington, including the most recent round of nuclear negotiations that were reportedly nearing a breakthrough.

According to Albusaidi, those efforts were abruptly derailed when “just a few hours after the latest and most substantive talks—Israel and America again launched an unlawful military strike against the peace that had briefly appeared really possible.”

For Muscat, the timing was not merely disruptive but deeply consequential, effectively collapsing months of diplomacy and raising serious questions about the reliability of US commitments in ongoing negotiations.

Recent reporting further underscores the depth of Omani frustration. Albusaidi has suggested that Israel played a decisive role in pushing Washington into escalation, effectively steering US policy toward war despite ongoing diplomatic progress.

War Shaped by Israeli Objectives

Albusaidi’s central argument is that the current war was not inevitable, but rather the result of political miscalculation in Washington—one closely tied to Israeli strategic priorities.

“The American administration’s greatest miscalculation,” he writes, “was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place. This is not America’s war.”

His formulation goes further than a general critique. By stressing that Washington was “drawn into” the conflict, Albusaidi implicitly identifies Israel as the primary driver of escalation.

He adds that there is “no likely scenario” in which either the US or Israel achieves its stated objectives, particularly given the scale of escalation required.

While Israel seeks the overthrow of the Iranian government, Albusaidi suggests Washington’s goals are far less defined—and far less aligned with such an outcome.

“Hopefully America’s commitment to regime change is just rhetorical,” he notes, contrasting it with Israel’s explicit objective of dismantling the Islamic Republic.

The underlying message is clear: the war reflects Israeli ambitions, while the United States risks bearing its costs.

Iran’s Response and Regional Fallout

The Omani minister does not endorse Iran’s actions, describing its retaliation as “deeply regrettable and completely unacceptable.” However, he frames it as predictable.

“Faced with what both Israel and America described as a war designed to terminate the Islamic Republic, this was probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership.”

For Gulf states, the consequences have been immediate and severe.

Albusaidi writes that countries in the region, long reliant on US security guarantees, now “experience that co-operation as an acute vulnerability, threatening their present security and future prosperity.”

He points to disruptions in maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, rising energy prices, and growing risks to economic diversification strategies across the Gulf.

“If this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war,” he adds, “that was surely a grave miscalculation.”

“Friends of America” Must Intervene

In one of the most striking passages, Albusaidi calls on US allies to play a more assertive role—not in supporting the war, but in helping end it.

“The question for friends of America is simple,” he writes. “What can we do to extricate the superpower from this unwanted entanglement?”

His answer begins with what he calls a responsibility to “tell the truth.”

“That begins with the fact that there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it,” he argues, emphasizing that both Iran and the United States share an interest in ending hostilities as quickly as possible.

But doing so requires confronting an uncomfortable reality: “the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy.”

Such language, particularly from a long-standing US partner in the Gulf, reflects a notable departure from conventional diplomatic messaging.

A Narrow Path Back to Talks

Despite the collapse of negotiations, Albusaidi insists that diplomacy remains the only viable path forward.

“It may be difficult for America to return to the bilateral negotiations from which it was twice diverted by the temptations of war,” he writes.

He also acknowledges the challenge for Tehran, noting it will be “certainly difficult for the Iranian leadership to return to dialogue with an administration that twice switched abruptly from talks to bombing and assassination.”

Yet, he concludes, “the path away from war… may have to lie through precisely this resumption.”

A Regional Framework for De-escalation

Looking beyond immediate ceasefire efforts, Albusaidi proposes a broader diplomatic initiative linking US-Iran negotiations to a regional framework on nuclear transparency and energy transition.

“This could be provided by linking the bilateral negotiations… to a wider regional process,” he suggests, aimed at building confidence and establishing shared standards.

Such a framework, he argues, could align the interests of Gulf states, Iran, and global powers around “secure energy supply chains and renewed investment opportunities.”

He raises the possibility of a regional non-aggression arrangement and a long-term agreement on nuclear energy transparency—an ambitious vision, particularly in the midst of active conflict.

No Normalization, No Alignment

Oman’s message is reinforced by its broader regional posture. In recent days, multiple reports said Albusaidi made clear that Muscat would not normalize relations with Israel and would not join Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” distancing Oman from the political architecture taking shape around the Gaza file and the wider regional war.

That position matters because it places Oman outside the camp, treating the current escalation as a pathway to a new regional order anchored in Israeli military primacy and normalization deals. According to recent reporting, Albusaidi also argued that the war’s aims extended beyond the nuclear issue, tying it to efforts to weaken Iran, reshape the region, and advance a broader political project.

Set alongside his Economist essay — in which he wrote that the United States had been “drawn into this war” and had “lost control of its own foreign policy” — Oman’s rejection of normalization sharpens the broader meaning of his intervention: Muscat is signaling that this conflict is being driven above all by Israeli strategic objectives, while Gulf states are being asked to absorb the consequences.

(The Palestine Chronicle)