U.S.–Iran Talks at a Critical Juncture as Diplomacy Proceeds Under the Shadow of Escalation
The latest round of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran has unfolded at an exceptionally sensitive and consequential moment, with diplomacy advancing amid an unprecedented American military build-up. Following the third round of talks in Geneva on February 26, Iranian officials described the discussions as serious, dense, and constructive, pointing to what they called “good progress” on key elements of a potential agreement.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi characterized the negotiations as among the most substantive to date, stating that both sides had entered detailed discussions on the framework of a possible deal. He emphasized that Iran is prepared to address international concerns regarding its nuclear program and to work through technical questions in cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but firmly rejected any demand for dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, serving as mediator, described the talks as achieving “significant progress” and announced that technical-level discussions are expected to resume in Vienna next week, potentially paving the way for a fourth political round.
Despite Tehran’s cautiously optimistic tone, Washington has remained more measured in its public messaging. While U.S. officials described the talks as “positive,” they have avoided endorsing claims of breakthrough. President Donald Trump, speaking during his annual State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday, placed the negotiations within a broader narrative of deterrence and pressure. In his remarks, Trump reiterated that the United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, warning that despite the damage inflicted by the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, “they’re starting it all over.” He described the Iranians as “terrible people” and suggested that Iran could pursue intercontinental ballistic missile technology that would allow Iran to strike the United States.
However, little information in the public domain supports the President’s claims on the nuclear and missile programs. Iran is not presently enriching and analysts predict that Iran could be ten years or more away from fielding missiles that could strike the United States, if it made a decision to pursue the capability. While he ultimately signaled a preference for diplomacy, his tone reinforced a harsh posture toward Iran.
Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials have reinforced the narrative of Iran posing a threat. Vice President J.D. Vance has suggested that Iran has resumed efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, also without evidence. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, has reiterated that diplomacy remains the preferred path but stressed that negotiations must address not only the nuclear file, but also Iran’s ballistic missile program and maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf. Rubio described Iran’s missile arsenal as a serious threat to U.S. bases and regional partners, signaling that Washington seeks a broader security framework rather than a narrowly defined nuclear agreement.
This represents a notable potential split in the administration. Vance, perceived as more open to a deal, seems focused on a threat the negotiations are designed to address. By contrast, Rubio - widely perceived as more hostile to a deal - has emphasized a threat outside the scope of negotiations. The varying degrees of openness to a deal may explain a considerable amount of the administration’s conflicting messages on Iran and the negotiations as a whole.
The diplomatic track is unfolding alongside visible military preparedness. The United States has carried out one of its largest regional force repositionings in recent years, including the deployment of strategic aerial refueling aircraft to Israel, assets typically associated with extended-range air operations. Reports indicate that U.S. Central Command has presented President Trump with a range of military options, from limited strikes targeting missile launchers or nuclear facilities to a broader sustained campaign that could involve coordination with Israel.
At the same time, the United States authorized the voluntary departure of non-essential government personnel and their families from Israel as a precautionary measure. China has also urged its citizens to leave Iran, citing security risks, while Jordan has publicly stated that it will not allow its airspace to be used in a potential regional conflict. These moves reflect the degree to which governments are hedging against the possibility that diplomacy could falter.
Sanctions pressure has intensified in parallel. In the days surrounding the Geneva talks, Washington imposed new sanctions on more than 30 individuals, entities, and vessels accused of facilitating Iranian oil exports and supporting ballistic missile and drone production. U.S. officials described the measures as part of a broader “maximum pressure” strategy designed to increase leverage at the negotiating table.
Tehran continues to assert that it does not seek nuclear weapons. President Masoud Pezeshkian has reiterated that Iran’s religious leadership prohibits the development of such arms, framing this stance as a principled and doctrinal position rather than a tactical one. At the same time, Iranian military officials have issued warnings that any U.S. strike would provoke a decisive response. Senior commanders have emphasized readiness across drone, missile and air defense capabilities, while Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi described a potential U.S. attack as a “real gamble” that could destabilize the region.
The current moment reflects a stark paradox: negotiations are ongoing and have not collapsed, yet both sides are simultaneously reinforcing deterrence and preparing for escalation. Iran portrays the Geneva talks as evidence of forward movement toward sanctions relief and structured guarantees. The United States signals openness to diplomacy, but continues to stress that the military option remains credible and available.
As the process transitions to technical discussions in Vienna, the central question is whether this fragile diplomatic opening can translate into a concrete, verifiable framework—or whether political pressures, mistrust, and military signaling will erode the space for compromise. For now, Washington and Tehran remain in a narrow corridor - not at war, yet not at peace - with the coming weeks likely to determine whether diplomacy gains momentum or the region edges closer to confrontation despite active talks.