At the beginning of the week, Iran and the United States resumed indirect negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland under Omani mediation, creating an opening for continued diplomatic progress after months of heightened tension. Iranian officials described the second round of talks as more constructive than the first, emphasizing that discussions were serious and that both sides agreed on a set of “guiding principles” that will now form the basis for drafting a possible agreement. The negotiations lasted approximately three and a half hours, and while no text was produced, Iranian representatives stated that progress had been made and that the path forward was clearer than before. Yet, this optimistic view quickly dimmed amid an ongoing U.S. military build-up in the Middle East and skeptical American statements regarding the negotiations.
According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the atmosphere during the talks was constructive, and discussions moved beyond generalities into more concrete principles. He stressed that the drafting phase would take time and that there is no fixed date yet for the next round, but that texts will be exchanged and consultations with capitals will follow. The Iranian side expressed satisfaction with the direction of the discussions and signaled willingness to continue.
The IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi described the Geneva meeting as “a step forward”, but cautioned that “we do not have much time.” He indicated that, for the first time, the sides had begun addressing specific technical questions rather than abstract positions. The United Nations welcomed the talks, with the Secretary-General’s office emphasizing that all concerns should be resolved through diplomacy and urging both sides to maintain momentum. Oman and Switzerland were publicly thanked for facilitating the dialogue.
However, comparatively downbeat U.S. assessments, declarations of an imminent deadline for a deal and a major military build-up all dampened speculation that a deal can be reached. Vice President J.D. Vance said that while talks had gone well “in some ways,” Iran had not yet accepted U.S. “red lines,” and intimated that military force would be deployed if Iran does not accept the U.S. demands.
President Donald Trump publicly imposed a roughly 10-day deadline, stating that Iran must reach a “meaningful agreement” or “bad things will happen.” He stated “I would think that would be enough time, 10, 15 days, pretty much maximum.” Likewise, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright declared that Washington will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons “by any means necessary.”
Most significantly, the already-robust military posture in the Middle East has been significantly reinforced, with observers noting the U.S. build-up is the greatest since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. deployments expanded across Europe and the Middle East, including aircraft carriers, refueling aircraft, combat jets, command and control aircraft and additional naval assets.
While these major moves could still be reversed if a deal is agreed upon, most observers believe it signals an intent to attack Iran sooner than later given the cost and difficulty of assembling for war. As a result, the U.S. is prepared for any scenario, whether limited strikes, sustained air campaigns, or broader regional escalation. The concentration of forces suggests that the United States has positioned itself to act quickly and decisively if the diplomatic track collapses.
U.S. reporting indicates that the Trump administration is still debating its strike options. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that President Trump has presented with a “limited” strike option to compel Iran to agree to terms, including abandoning uranium enrichment. According to the report, the U.S. could pursue an “initial limited military strike on Iran to force it to meet his demands for a nuclear deal….The opening assault, which if authorized could come within days, would target a few military or government sites, people familiar with the matter said. If Iran still refused to comply with Trump’s directive to end its nuclear enrichment, the U.S. would respond with a broad campaign against regime facilities—potentially aimed at toppling the Tehran regime.” Amid these debates and signaling, a Trump official ultimately told Axios that the odds of an attack on Iran in the coming days are 90%, underscoring the grim outlook.
Likewise, Tehran has signaled in no uncertain terms that it would respond forcefully to any attack, and that enemy bases would be deemed legitimate targets. Experts observed that once started, it may be exceedingly difficult to control the escalation of war, raising serious doubts as to whether the Trump administration is carefully considering the weighty decision to launch a war.
This military escalation has significantly altered the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations. While diplomacy technically remains active, the visible expansion of U.S. military readiness has increased the perceived likelihood of confrontation. Markets have reacted accordingly: oil prices have risen sharply amid fears of disruption through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass daily.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated during this period that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons and is prepared to allow verification mechanisms to confirm this position. At the same time, he made clear that Iran will not abandon what it defines as its peaceful nuclear program, including activities for medical, agricultural, and industrial purposes. Tehran has framed its stance as openness to verification but firmly rejected forced dismantlement.
Foreign Minister Araghchi further emphasized that cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must remain technical and non-political, especially concerning inspections of facilities that were previously targeted in attacks. He stated that inspections of damaged sites must take place under specific security arrangements. Iran has also maintained that while it continues cooperation under safeguards, it expects equal seriousness from Washington and warns against politicization of the nuclear file.
Beyond nuclear limitations, Iran has signaled readiness to expand the scope of a potential agreement into broad economic cooperation. Iran’s Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad stated that cooperation between Tehran and Washington in the oil and gas sector is “possible”, saying that “everything is possible” if an agreement is reached. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs Hamid Ghanbari went further, confirming that negotiations include discussions of joint oil and gas field development, high-return mining investments, and even aircraft purchases. He explicitly argued that the previous nuclear agreement did not provide economic benefit to the United States and that for a new agreement to be sustainable, Washington must also gain rapid and tangible economic advantages. This suggests that Tehran may be prepared to offer significant economic incentives, including access to high-yield sectors, in exchange for sanctions relief and durable commitments.
Simultaneously, Iran has maintained a firm deterrent posture. Araghchi warned that if Iran is attacked, its response would “not be limited to its borders.” Iranian officials have stated that U.S. bases in the region could be targeted in the event of war. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei underscored this message, stating that even the strongest army in the world could be struck in a way that prevents it from recovering, and that while aircraft carriers are dangerous, there are weapons capable of sending them to the bottom of the sea.
Iran also conducted naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean. Moscow stated that these drills were pre-planned and unrelated to current tensions, but the timing has reinforced perceptions of strategic coordination. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that a U.S. attack on Iran would have serious consequences, describing escalation as “playing with fire,” and noting that Gulf states do not seek rising tensions. He cautioned that conflict could undermine recent regional improvements, particularly Iran’s rapprochement with Saudi Arabia.
Tehran has also activated legal and diplomatic channels. Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, sent a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, arguing that recent U.S. threats constitute violations of the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4) prohibiting the threat or use of force. He urged the Security Council to act “before it is too late,” while simultaneously emphasizing that if the American side shows seriousness, a balanced and sustainable agreement remains achievable.
Regional actors have also responded cautiously. The United Kingdom reportedly declined permission for the United States to use certain British bases for a potential strike, emphasizing support for diplomacy and international law. Germany temporarily reduced troop presence in northern Iraq due to rising tensions. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that any agreement must include full dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment capabilities and restrictions on ballistic missiles, adding further pressure to negotiations.
Taken together, the sequence of events is striking: the week began with renewed diplomacy and cautious optimism about structured negotiations, but immediately afterward the United States dramatically elevated its military posture and imposed a public deadline. Iran has signaled willingness to negotiate nuclear limitations and offer significant economic incentives while maintaining deterrent warnings. The United States has signaled that diplomacy remains open—but under the shadow of overwhelming force.
As a result, despite ongoing negotiations, the probability of military confrontation now appears significantly higher than at the start of the week. The coming days, particularly as Trump’s deadline approaches, may determine whether diplomacy regains momentum or whether the military card, now visibly elevated, reshapes the trajectory toward conflict.