Negotiations Under Military Pressure: Strategic Designs in the Iran–U.S. Confrontation
The latest phase of Iran–U.S. negotiations are unfolding under intensified military pressure, creating a highly volatile but still fluid diplomatic environment.
The latest phase of Iran–U.S. negotiations are unfolding under intensified military pressure, creating a highly volatile but still fluid diplomatic environment. The United States is reinforcing its regional posture militarily while maintaining sanctions and political leverage. Iran is responding with calibrated deterrent signaling of its own. At the same time, indirect negotiations continue through regional intermediaries. The current moment reflects a fragile equilibrium between coercion and diplomacy, with both sides attempting to increase the cost of military confrontation while preserving room for political maneuver.
Washington has moved to strengthen its military footprint near Iran. Reporting indicates that President Donald Trump has directed a second aircraft carrier group, the USS Gerald Ford, to transit to the Middle East. The last time two carrier groups were operating in the Middle East at the same time was in June, 2025, amid the 12 day war and its aftermath, though it is not entirely uncommon for two carrier groups to be in the Middle East at the same time. U.S. officials have framed this deployment as a measure designed to increase leverage over Tehran in nuclear negotiations. Vice President J. D. Vance reiterated that Washington’s priority is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon—not pursuing regime change—while keeping all options available.
Following the first round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Oman, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with President Trump and other administration officials. Speculation ahead of the trip indicated that Netanyahu was preparing to press Trump on the need for a new round of war against Iran, and to stick by hardline demands in any negotiations that Iran would find difficult to accept.
However, following the meeting, Trump publicly emphasized his preference for diplomacy. Trump posted to Truth Social, “[t]here was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated. If it can, I let the Prime Minister know that will be a preference.” He also hinted strongly that failure to reach a deal could trigger an attack, referencing the Operation Midnight Hammer strikes that disabled Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Hence, for the near term, President Trump appeared to project a difference of opinion with Neyanyahu and a preference for allowing the negotiations to unfold.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu appeared to signal tactical retreat following his meeting with Trump. On departing Washington, Netanyahu told reporters “President Trump believes that the Iranians have already learned who they are dealing with. He thinks that the conditions he is creating, combined with the fact that they surely understand they made a mistake last time when they didn’t reach an agreement, could create the conditions for achieving a good deal. He wanted to hear my opinion. I won’t hide from you that I expressed general skepticism about the nature of any agreement with Iran. But I said that if an agreement is indeed reached, it must include the elements that are very important to us - to Israel - and in my view not only to Israel. It’s not just the nuclear issue, but also the ballistic missiles and the Iranian proxies in the region.”
Of course, reporting consistently pointed to friction between Netanyahu and Trump prior to the outbreak of the 12 Day War last June. To the extent that it may have existed, differences were quickly papered over, with President Trump eventually joining in on strikes on Iran and later touting the supposed success of Israel’s strikes as well. As a result, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from any official pronouncements on the negotiations and the possible outbreak of war.
On the Iranian side, officials have adopted calibrated deterrent messaging in response to U.S. deployments. Ali Shamkhani, newly appointed Secretary of Iran’s Supreme Defense Council, declared that Iran’s missile capability is a red line and not open to negotiation, warning that even limited military action would be interpreted as the beginning of a broader conflict unlikely to remain geographically-confined. Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff has pledged a “crushing and expanded” response to threats, reinforcing the message that escalation would carry regional consequences. Senior Iranian officials have cautioned that in the event of war, energy security could be disrupted and the Strait of Hormuz could be affected, significantly raising the global economic cost of confrontation.
Diplomatically, Tehran remains active. Ali Larijani traveled to Oman and Qatar for consultations, confirming that indirect talks with Washington are ongoing through Omani mediation. He has also held meetings linked to Iran’s broader regional network, including figures associated with Hamas and the Houthis. These engagements suggest that Iran is simultaneously managing negotiation channels and reinforcing deterrence through regional coordination.
Many regional actors are actively working to prevent escalation. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has indicated that both Tehran and Washington appear willing to compromise on the nuclear issue, though warned that expanding talks to include Iran’s missile program risks wider conflict. Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt have all publicly and diplomatically pushed for a negotiated agreement, emphasizing regional stability and warning against another destructive war. Qatar’s Emir spoke directly with President Trump ahead of Netanyahu’s visit, underscoring regional anxiety about escalation. Egypt has likewise stressed the importance of avoiding military confrontation and supporting diplomatic resolution, aligning with broader Arab concerns about economic disruption and security instability.
The nuclear file remains central to negotiations. Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has stated that approximately 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent prior to recent hostilities likely still exists in damaged underground facilities. He has emphasized that full inspection access under the Non-Proliferation Treaty framework is essential. Following the 12-day conflict and U.S. strikes on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, Iran has restricted access to certain underground sites, citing security and political considerations. President Masoud Pezeshkian has affirmed that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and is prepared for verification, while highlighting persistent mistrust due to prior disruptions of negotiations.
Within this broader diplomatic track, three structured proposals are shaping the negotiation landscape. The first reflects a maximalist U.S.–Israeli framework. Under this approach, Iran would be required to transfer or surrender its 60 percent enriched uranium, accept immediate and comprehensive inspections, eliminate uranium enrichment entirely, limit missile capabilities, and curtail support for regional allied groups. This proposal is backed by sustained military deployments and intensified pressure. Israeli leadership has signaled concern that any agreement short of this framework would leave strategic risks unresolved.
The second proposal has emerged through mediators. This framework centers on a nuclear-focused agreement combined with economic relief, potentially accompanied by non-aggression assurances and limited understandings—oral or written—regarding missile and regional matters without fully incorporating them into the formal agreement. The emphasis is on de-escalation and stabilization rather than comprehensive rollback.
The third proposal reflects Iran’s stated negotiating position. Tehran insists that talks must remain strictly nuclear in scope. In exchange for phased steps - such as dilution of 60 percent enrichment, adjustments to 20 percent stockpiles, structured long-term arrangements (potentially consortium-based) and the preservation of enrichment on Iranian soil - Iran seeks reciprocal sanctions relief and a reduction of regional military pressure. Iranian officials also suggest that diplomacy must allow space for de-escalation without political humiliation on either side, and that external pressure should not precondition negotiations.
At present, negotiations are proceeding under what can be described as a military umbrella—coercive diplomacy designed to raise the cost of war while testing the limits of compromise. The enhanced U.S. deployments signal readiness, while Iran’s deterrent messaging signals capacity for escalation. Yet, following Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the White House has publicly reaffirmed that diplomacy remains the preferred course, even amid pressure to broaden the agenda.
The trajectory of this confrontation will depend on whether military leverage strengthens diplomatic bargaining—or erodes it through miscalculation. For now, despite heightened rhetoric and visible force posture adjustments, both Tehran and Washington appear to be operating within a framework where negotiation, not immediate war, remains the primary strategic objective.