Oman’s foreign minister is making headlines after claiming the Trump administration “lost control of its own foreign policy” during negotiations with Iran—but the bigger picture tells a very different story.

Badr Albusaidi, who acted as a mediator between the United States and Iran, argued that a deal to avoid war was “really possible” and said talks had come close to success not once, but twice over the past nine months. According to him, negotiations even reached a critical stage during meetings in Geneva before military strikes were launched.

He described the conflict as a “catastrophe” and suggested that the U.S. was drawn into war despite progress at the negotiating table. He also pointed fingers at Israel’s leadership, claiming they influenced the situation by pushing the idea that a rapid victory would follow initial strikes.

Albusaidi went further, stating that America’s allies have a responsibility to “tell the truth,” including what he characterized as a loss of control in U.S. foreign policy. Strong words—but also coming from a perspective deeply invested in keeping negotiations alive at all costs.

Let’s be clear: the Trump administration has consistently maintained that Iran posed an imminent threat through its nuclear program, which ultimately justified decisive action. And while diplomatic talks may have been ongoing, history has shown that Iran’s promises don’t always match its actions. Shocking, I know.

Albusaidi pointed to multiple rounds of indirect negotiations, including talks in Oman starting February 6 and a final round in Geneva on February 26. However, just days later, military action was taken—something he described as derailing what could have been a breakthrough.

But here’s the reality: negotiations only work when both sides are acting in good faith. And when intelligence suggests an imminent threat, waiting around for another round of talks isn’t exactly a winning strategy.

At the end of the day, while critics may question the timing or approach, the priority remains clear—protecting national security and preventing dangerous regimes from advancing capabilities that could threaten the world.

And as this situation continues to unfold, one thing stands firm: strong leadership means making tough calls, even when critics would rather keep talking than act.