The experience of the talks preceding the 12-day war demonstrated that dialogue and preparedness can advance simultaneously. At that time, communication channels were active, messages were exchanged and some assessments suggested the crisis could be contained. Yet at other levels, developments on the ground were taking shape. The war did not emerge from a vacuum in diplomacy but from the coexistence of negotiations and security preparations. Today, the environment surrounding the talks recalls that same grey zone.
After the conclusion of the third round of Geneva talks, the meaningful silence of the United States, alongside relatively positive remarks from Oman and Iran, has drawn analysts’ attention. This silence cannot simply be interpreted as indifference or indecision. In many security crises, a reduction in official statements signals a shift from the media arena to the security domain — a phase in which policymakers prefer to keep public narratives steady so as not to constrain their room for maneuver in choosing subsequent options.
Within this context, the US State Department’s notice granting permission for the departure of non-essential American citizens in Israel carries significance beyond a routine administrative step. Such authorizations are typically issued when risk assessments rise and the possibility of unforeseen scenarios is taken seriously. The measure, combined with signs of internal preparations in the occupied territories — including orders to reopen shelters in certain areas — presents an image of “pre-emptive caution.” This does not necessarily indicate a firm decision to engage in conflict, but it suggests that high-risk options are being seriously considered.
Targeted information leaks and precautionary steps such as the evacuation of non-essential personnel are generally viewed in security terminology as part of the process of shifting decision-making from the media space to the operational sphere. Such patterns do not automatically point to an inevitable move toward war, but they indicate that deliberations have entered a more sensitive stage.
Against this backdrop, the swift visit of Oman’s foreign minister to Washington and his meeting with J.D. Vance — rather than with Marco Rubio — takes on particular importance. The choice of meeting level reflects an effort to influence the decision-making circle close to the president. When diplomacy is directed toward a vice president who holds anti-war leanings, the aim is often to correct threat assessments and reduce the likelihood of miscalculation. In a context where information may travel through multiple channels and sometimes carry regional bias, the mediating role of Oman in conveying alternative assessments and warnings about unintended consequences becomes even more significant.
One of the serious risks in such an environment is decisions being based on misinterpretations of the other side’s intent or capability. If a perception gains ground in Washington that a limited action can be taken without expanding the scope of the crisis, the danger of miscalculation increases. Iran has previously stated that it will not treat any limited action against it as limited and will respond within a broader framework. This divergence in defining what “limited” means could become a point of friction that is difficult to control.
On the other hand, the possibility of an initial move by Israel remains part of the analysis. Such a scenario could allow Washington to create initial distance from direct involvement. However, even in this case, the reopening of shelters and heightened internal readiness indicate that Israeli decision-makers are also considering reciprocal consequences and taking the risk of escalation seriously.
Overall, recent developments should be seen as signs that the crisis has entered a more sensitive phase — one in which diplomacy remains active while precautionary security measures are simultaneously underway. This situation neither signals an imminent war nor reflects lasting calm, but rather represents an unstable equilibrium where managing narratives, correcting information and preventing miscalculation are of vital importance. History has shown that wars sometimes begin not with deliberate decisions, but with misjudgments and misunderstandings of intent. That reality makes heightened vigilance essential at this juncture.
NOURNEWS