Trump’s War of Choice: Oman Reveals Iran Agreement Was Imminent

February 28, 2026, by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/28/trumps-war-of-choice-oman-reveals-iran-agreement-was-imminent/

Hours before U.S. bombs began falling on Iran, a quiet but extraordinary diplomatic revelation aired on American television.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi—the chief mediator between Washington and Tehran—stated plainly that a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran was “within our reach.”

It was not vague optimism. It was a detailed outline of concessions.

According to Albusaidi, Iran had agreed to something that went beyond the 2015 nuclear accord negotiated under Barack Obama—a deal later abandoned by Donald Trump. This time, Tehran had committed not merely to limits on enrichment, but to zero stockpiling of enriched nuclear material. No accumulation. No reserve. Full and comprehensive verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“If you cannot stockpile material that is enriched,” Albusaidi explained, “then there is no way you can actually create a bomb.”

In other words: the central justification for war was being diplomatically neutralized.

And yet, within hours, Trump announced military strikes on Iran and signaled a campaign aimed not at containment, but regime change.

The Timing Speaks Volumes

Oman has long served as a discreet intermediary in U.S.–Iran diplomacy. It is known for caution, not grandstanding. For Albusaidi to go public—on a flagship American news program—was highly unusual.

According to Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, the move was unprecedented. Oman’s message was clear: diplomacy had produced real progress. Trump could have declared victory.

Instead, he declared war.

If Albusaidi’s account is accurate, then the administration’s claim that Iran “rejected every opportunity” to curb nuclear ambitions collapses under scrutiny. What was preempted was not an imminent nuclear breakout—it was a diplomatic breakthrough.

War of Choice, Not Necessity

The United States Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. No such declaration has been issued. International law permits force only in response to an armed attack or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met.

This is not a defensive war. It is a war of choice.

And it is a deeply unpopular one. A recent survey found that only 21% of Americans support initiating an attack on Iran under current circumstances. The public understands something Washington elites often ignore: wars in the Middle East do not remain limited, surgical, or contained. They metastasize.

The echoes of 2003 are unmistakable.

Diplomacy Sabotaged

The tragedy is not only that bombs are falling. It is that negotiations were ongoing. Additional talks were scheduled for next week. The diplomatic channel was open.

By launching strikes at the moment mediation was yielding results, the administration has sent a stark message—not just to Iran, but to the world: agreements reached through dialogue can be nullified by executive fiat.

This damages more than a single negotiation. It undermines the credibility of American diplomacy itself.

If zero stockpiling under full IAEA verification was indeed on the table, then the choice before Washington was clear: accept an enforceable nonproliferation framework—or escalate toward regional war.

The administration chose escalation.

The Broader Implication

Regime-change wars have a long and destructive history in U.S. foreign policy. They rarely produce democracy. They often produce chaos, extremism, and prolonged suffering—for civilians first and foremost.

The question now is not simply whether this war is legal or justified. It is whether it was avoidable.

The Omani foreign minister’s televised appeal suggests that it was.

Peace, he said, was within reach.

And then the bombs began.