U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis: Fragile Consensus Under Brinkmanship

On February 17, Geneva, Switzerland. Mediated by Oman, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and the U.S. delegation concluded nearly three hours of indirect talks. Almost simultaneously, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired live ammunition missiles hundreds of kilometers away in the Strait of Hormuz and announced a temporary closure of the waterway—which handles about 20% of global oil trade—for several hours. On one side, diplomats spoke of consensus on guiding principles; on the other, missile trails streaked across the Persian Gulf sky. This parallel scenario outlines the essence of current U.S.-Iran relations: a negotiation conducted on the brink of war, where any progress rests on a fragile balance of military deterrence.

"Principles" and Red Lines on the Geneva Negotiation Table

According to public information, the Geneva talks on February 17 achieved some technical progress. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi told Iran's state television after the meeting that both sides reached a general consensus on a set of guiding principles for the negotiations. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance acknowledged in an interview with Fox News that the talks were progressing well in certain aspects, but he also emphasized that some red lines set by President Trump have not yet been recognized by Iran. An anonymous U.S. official revealed to the media that Iran is expected to submit a detailed proposal within the next two weeks to bridge the significant differences that still exist between the two sides.

The structure of the negotiations reflects the complexity of the issue. Similar to the first round of talks held in Oman on February 6, this round remains indirect. Instead of meeting directly, the Iranian and U.S. delegations communicated through messages relayed by Omani diplomat Badr Albusaidi. Albusaidi stated on social media platform X that the talks made good progress in identifying common goals and addressing relevant technical issues, and the atmosphere was constructive. This pattern of communication through a third party indicates an extreme lack of basic mutual trust between the two countries, making direct dialogue difficult to achieve.

The core demands of both sides remain in opposition. The United States' bottom line is clear: the Trump administration demands that Iran completely restrict its nuclear program, particularly by ceasing uranium enrichment activities and ensuring it cannot develop nuclear weapons. To exert pressure, Trump publicly stated on the eve of the talks, "I think they want to make a deal. I think they don't want to bear the consequences of not making a deal." Iran's stance is equally firm. Araghchi drew a line in a post on X before the talks: "What is on the table: yielding under threat? No." Iran insists that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes and demands that the United States lift the series of economic sanctions reimposed after its unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018.

The deeper conflict lies in the fact that the negotiation agenda is strictly confined to nuclear issues, with other potentially contentious topics excluded. Iran's state television specifically pointed out that the talks focus solely on the nuclear program and do not involve Iran's domestic policies, including the suppression of nationwide protests last month. However, it is precisely these domestic upheavals intertwined with international pressure that have narrowed the maneuvering room for Iran's leadership in the negotiations. According to statistics from the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, the death toll from the crackdown on the night of January 8 to 9 reached at least 7,015. Although this figure cannot be independently verified, it highlights the internal pressure faced by the Iranian regime.

Military buildup in the Persian Gulf and the escalation of "gunboat diplomacy".

If the negotiation table in Geneva is one side of the stage, then the military dynamics across the entire Middle East serve as an even more decisive backdrop. Over the past month, the U.S. military presence in the region has rapidly escalated, reaching its highest level since the brief conflict between the U.S. and Iran in June last year. Multiple officials from the U.S. administration and the Pentagon have revealed to The New York Times that the swift buildup of military forces has provided President Trump with the option to take military action against Iran as early as this weekend.

The scale of military deployment is remarkable. The core strength includes two aircraft carrier strike groups. In addition to the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been deployed in the Persian Gulf region for over two weeks, along with its accompanying missile destroyers, the world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, was redirected from the Caribbean to the Middle East last week. As of February 18, the USS Ford and its three destroyer escorts were crossing the Strait of Gibraltar and are expected to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean by this weekend or early next week. A military official analyzed that the USS Ford is likely to be initially deployed near the Israeli coast, with one of its core missions being to defend cities such as Tel Aviv against potential missile retaliation from Iran.

Air power is also being enhanced. According to flight tracking data and information from U.S. officials, dozens of additional F-35, F-22, and F-16 fighter jets have been redeployed from the continental United States to European bases in recent days and continue to move forward to forward positions in the Middle East. These fighter jets will form the main force for conducting precision strikes against Iran's air defense systems and ground targets. Additionally, dozens of aerial refueling tankers—assets crucial for sustaining a prolonged air strike campaign—have also been forward deployed.

The enhancement of defensive capabilities is the key to this assembly. A military official pointed out that just one month ago, when Trump first threatened to strike Iran, the Pentagon was actually ill-prepared. The 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops stationed across eight permanent bases in the Middle East were severely lacking in air defense systems to protect them from Iranian ballistic missile retaliation. The situation has now significantly improved. Both the Patriot missile defense system and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system have been deployed. These two systems are capable of intercepting Iran's medium- and short-range ballistic missiles. The official assessed that the U.S. military now has the capability to protect its troops, allies, and assets in the short term against any retaliatory actions by Iran in response to U.S. strikes on its nuclear and military targets. However, the question remains whether the U.S. military is prepared for a longer and broader war.

Israel's movements are another key variable. Two Israeli defense officials revealed that the Israeli military has been on high alert for several weeks and is making further preparations for a potential war. An important meeting of Israel's security cabinet has been postponed from February 19 to February 22, which is interpreted by external observers as a sign of waiting for signals from U.S. decision-making. Israel's plan envisions a joint operation with the United States to deliver a heavy blow within a few days, aiming to force Iran to make concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to offer. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing for action to weaken Iran's ability to launch missiles at Israel.

The "Scheduled Closure" of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's Deterrence Logic

On the day of the negotiations, February 17, Iran announced the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz for live-fire military exercises due to security and maritime concerns, marking the most symbolic and dangerous move in this crisis. The semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported that missiles launched by the Revolutionary Guards from within Iran and its coastal areas hit predetermined targets in the Strait of Hormuz. This marked the first time Iran had closed parts of this critical international waterway since the United States began threatening military action against Iran.

Dr. Sina Azodi, Director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, analyzed: Obviously, on the day they were negotiating with the United States, I do not believe this is a coincidence. For decades, Iranians have been trying to portray themselves as the ones calling the shots in the Persian Gulf. They closed the Strait precisely to demonstrate that they are in control there. This is essentially a carefully calculated brinkmanship strategy. Iran did not permanently or extensively block the Strait—which would immediately trigger global oil market turmoil and a U.S. military response—but instead opted for timed closures. This move both showcases its capability to block the Strait, sending a deterrent message to the United States and its allies, and sets a clear endpoint for the action, preventing the situation from spiraling out of control due to miscalculation.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in his speech during the military exercises, further clarified Tehran's deterrence logic. He warned the United States through Iranian state television: "Of course, warships are dangerous devices, but what is more dangerous than warships are weapons that can sink warships to the bottom of the sea." He also cautioned the United States that imposing negotiation outcomes in advance is a mistaken and foolish endeavor. These remarks vividly illustrate Iran's anti-access/area denial strategy: in the face of the overwhelming conventional naval power of the United States, Iran does not seek direct fleet confrontations but relies on asymmetric warfare means such as land-based anti-ship missiles, drones, naval mines, and fast-attack craft swarms to threaten to turn high-value assets like U.S. aircraft carriers into steel coffins at the bottom of the sea.

However, Iran's deterrence actions are carried out against a backdrop of domestic tensions. On February 17, Iran was also observing the traditional 40-day mourning period for the deadliest day of nationwide protest suppression. The regime faces multiple pressures from domestic public discontent and international isolation. In such a situation of internal and external difficulties, demonstrating toughness externally, especially showcasing control in the Strait of Hormuz—a core area concerning the nation's economic lifeline and strategic influence—has become an important means to divert domestic conflicts, consolidate nationalist sentiment, and increase leverage in international negotiations.

Trump's Decision Dilemma and the Calculus of War Risk

President Trump is faced with a high-stakes decision dilemma. On one hand, he confronts the conflict between fulfilling his campaign promises and current strategic needs. The president, who once pledged to keep America out of wars, is now considering what would be at least the seventh foreign military strike in the past year, and the second targeting Iran. In June of last year, after striking three Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump declared that Iran's nuclear program had been destroyed. However, intelligence assessments now indicate that Iran's nuclear activities are resuming, compelling him to consider deploying U.S. military forces once again to complete the task.

On the other hand, the objectives of this military operation appear more ambiguous and riskier compared to last June. Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University, pointed out: Diplomacy might give the United States more time to prepare its troops, but it also gives Iran more time to plan its retaliation. Ultimately, the president must weigh the costs of attacking Iran. Ironically, his approach makes these costs more likely to occur. Any action aimed at changing Iran's regime cannot guarantee success, and senior national security officials have conveyed this assessment to the president.

Trump's decision-making style heightens uncertainty. He is accustomed to leveraging extreme pressure and unpredictability to gain negotiation advantages, an escalated version of gunboat diplomacy that he has employed in other contexts such as Venezuela. Dr. Azodi believes: President Trump took the concept of gunboat diplomacy literally, but he also lacks much patience in negotiations. I think the experiences in Venezuela and elsewhere convinced him that he could strike at very low, almost zero cost, and then declare victory... So I don't believe this is merely bluffing. But Iran is not Venezuela. Its missile arsenal, regional proxy networks, and ability to blockade the Strait of Hormuz mean that any conflict could rapidly escalate into a regional war engulfing the entire Middle East and impacting global energy markets.

The anxiety of the Gulf Arab states is evident. They have warned that any attack could escalate into another conflict in the Middle East, a region that has yet to recover from the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. For countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which heavily rely on oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz and regional stability, a U.S.-Iran war would be catastrophic, regardless of their outwardly hostile stance toward Iran.

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt's statement on February 18 attempted to convey a balanced message: The President has always been very clear that diplomacy is always his first choice, whether with Iran or any country in the world, and it would be very wise for Iran to reach an agreement with President Trump and this administration. He always considers what is in the best interests of the United States of America, our military, and the American people, and that is how he makes decisions regarding military actions. However, this official rhetoric cannot conceal a fundamental fact: when diplomatic negotiations take place under the shadow of an aircraft carrier, and when the consensus on guiding principles is announced alongside missile tests, the foundation of peace becomes exceptionally fragile.

In the next two weeks, Iran's commitment to presenting detailed proposals and the U.S. response will determine whether this crisis moves toward a diplomatic resolution or slides into military conflict. The principles agreed upon in Geneva are like the surface of the Strait of Hormuz—seemingly calm, yet with undercurrents swirling beneath. Any miscalculation could trigger massive waves. Historical experience shows that in games of brinkmanship, the most dangerous moment is often not the confrontation itself, but the moment when one side mistakenly believes the other is merely bluffing.