Alex Vatanka

The decision by Washington and Tehran to shift their long-anticipated meeting, set for February 6, from Istanbul to Muscat is not merely a logistical detail. It is the latest reminder that when US-Iran diplomacy is on the verge of breaking down completely, Oman is the regional player the Iranian regime trusts the most to step in and mediate.

People are not protesting because they suddenly discovered activism. They are protesting because the habits of coping and waiting for conditions to improve have finally stopped working.

Last week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei effectively greenlit mass killing to save his regime. His message was blunt: blood would be spilled to preserve the system. His security forces followed through, unleashing a level of violence against protesters that even by the Islamic Republic’s grim standards marks a dangerous escalation.

On Sunday, December 28, Iran’s latest wave of unrest began not on a university campus or in a symbolic political square, but in the very heart of the country’s economic sphere: the Grand Bazaar commercial center in downtown Tehran. What distinguishes the current moment is not simply the persistence of unrest but its emotional register. Iranian commentary increasingly describes not just hardship but a collapse of expectations of a better future.

Following another year of pivotal developments and transformational change, the Middle East could be poised to turn the page on many of its long-running conflicts and sources of instability. But lasting fruits of the processes begun in 2025 will require a determined, intentional focus by regional actors and the United States. Given current trends, MEI experts weigh in on where the region may be headed in 2026.

For Iran, Iraq is strategic depth, political sanctuary, and economic lifeline all at once. The results of the November 11 Iraqi elections will decide who in Baghdad controls the budgetary levers, internal security appointments, and committees that could codify, or constrain, Iraq’s Iran-backed militias.

For decades, the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran has symbolized the righteousness of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s revolutionary defiance and the legitimacy of “resistance” as state ideology. To question it is to pry open the logic of the entire enterprise.

Iran’s nuclear trajectory is more like a cautious glide along a familiar route than a leap into the unknown, made up of tactical, reversible steps aimed at buying time rather than fundamentally changing the project. 

In New York, Iranian officials quietly explored whether a brief delay to the re-imposition of UN sanctions (‘snapback’) could be negotiated on the sidelines of the General Assembly if negotiations addressed their stockpile enriched to 60 percent. 

For years, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader and ultimate powerbroker, has been insisting to his people that there would be no war with the United States or Israel. That claim was shattered when more than 1,000 Iranians were killed in June’s 12-day war. Now he warns against the country sliding into a “state of ‘no war, no peace.’” The diagnosis isn’t wrong—but refusing to confront hard choices is vintage Khamenei.

As the Trump administration pushes to expand the Abraham Accords in the Middle East and into the Caucasus and Central Asia, it overlooks a dramatic shift in perception across the Arab and Muslim world. Where once Israel might have been viewed as David battling a Goliath-like Arab world, today the roles appear reversed. Israel, empowered by unchecked military might and unwavering US support, is increasingly seen not just as a regional power but as a US-backed regional hegemon. For Gulf Arab states, this transformation presents a dilemma: Can a Goliath be a partner in peace?

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s first year in office has been defined by Iran’s familiar political structural constraints, external crises, and a moderate-reformist base forever frustrated with his cautious pragmatism and unfulfilled promises. His July 2024 election was undeniably a setback for hardliners. Yet one year later, the assessment is sobering: While Pezeshkian has in some ways perhaps helped in slowing the hardline march, he has not made any fundamental difference in how the Islamic Republic is run. Every decision requires second-guessing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s next move, and even as a president boxed in by the system with limited powers, he is constantly under the sword of Damocles.

The 12-day war between Iran, Israel, and the United States has ended, but the dust has not yet settled. Many official voices in Tehran are warning that the war can resume at any moment. Iran now faces deepening economic turmoil, political uncertainty, and hard choices about its nuclear future. The central question is whether the Islamic Republic will emerge stronger through nationalist mobilization or weaker, exposed by vulnerabilities it long sought to deny. No doubt, Iran’s leaders stand at a true crossroads.

Where is Ali Khamenei? That is the question on the minds of many Iranians and foreign observers in the aftermath of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. As missiles rained down and retaliatory strikes escalated, one voice was conspicuously absent: that of the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The United States is now at war with Iran, or at least something dangerously close to it. The June 21 US strikes on key Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including the underground Fordow facility, marked a dramatic escalation. Yet Washington has carefully avoided calling this a full-scale war.

As the Israel-Iran conflict intensifies, warnings are growing louder that the war could result in hazardous and destructive radiological spillover to much of the region. But the posturing of various key actors in the Gulf and beyond has opened the door to a broader political settlement between the United States and Iran that could end the hostilities before such a dangerous scenario comes to pass.