U.S.-Iran Geneva Nuclear Talks and Military Standoff in the Middle East: Diplomacy on the Edge of a Cliff

From February 26 to 27, the third round of indirect nuclear talks between the United States and Iran was held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the residence of Oman's ambassador to Geneva. During the negotiations, the U.S. Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group had already departed from Souda Bay in Crete, Greece, and was heading to reinforce the Middle East. The U.S. delegation was led by Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff and Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, while the Iranian delegation was headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi serving as the mediator. The talks lasted nearly ten hours, and both sides stated afterward that significant progress had been made, though no specific terms were disclosed. This diplomatic engagement, conducted against the backdrop of military mobilization, is widely regarded as a critical opportunity to avoid regional war, and its outcome will directly impact the security situation in the Middle East in the coming months.

Progress of Negotiations and Remaining Differences

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi revealed in an interview with CBS on February 27 that this round of negotiations has achieved a significant breakthrough: Iran has agreed in principle to never possess fissionable materials that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Al Busaidi stated that this commitment is entirely new and goes beyond the scope of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement. The specific framework includes the zero-stockpile principle, meaning Iran must not store any enriched uranium. Its existing stockpile of approximately 400 kilograms must be downgraded and converted into nuclear fuel that cannot be used for weapons, and the process must be irreversible. The International Atomic Energy Agency will be granted comprehensive and continuous verification authority, and in the future, U.S. inspectors may also be allowed access to Iranian nuclear facilities.

However, key disagreements persist. Iranian state media reiterated after the negotiations that Tehran insists on its right to peaceful use of nuclear energy and explicitly rejected the U.S. demand for a complete halt to domestic uranium enrichment activities and the shipment of all enriched uranium out of the country. Iran's core demand remains unchanged: limiting its nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. lifting all economic sanctions imposed since 2018. Before the talks, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance publicly accused Iran of attempting to rebuild a nuclear weapons program from scratch and emphasized that Iran must never possess nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that any agreement must include restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program and require Iran to cease support for regional proxy groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Yemeni Houthis. Tehran views these conditions as non-negotiable red lines.

Military Mobilization and War Risks

Military movements beyond the negotiation table form the most urgent backdrop to this diplomatic effort. Since early February, the United States has carried out its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War. In addition to the USS Ford moving eastward from the Mediterranean, another carrier strike group has been deployed to waters near the Persian Gulf. U.S. Central Command confirmed that the additional forces include thousands of troops, dozens of F-35 and F-15E fighter jets, along with supporting aerial refueling aircraft. The Pentagon’s deployment is clearly preparing the option for high-intensity airstrikes against Iran.

The President of the United States set a maximum deadline of 15 days before negotiations and warned that otherwise, bad things would happen. U.S. media cited anonymous government officials as saying that the White House had considered launching a preemptive strike against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or nuclear facilities if talks broke down, and even evaluated military plans aimed at overthrowing Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. According to reports, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that going to war with Iran carried extremely high risks and could plunge the United States into a prolonged conflict, but the presidential side believed that the war could be easily won. Iran's response was equally tough: senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guard repeatedly stated that any attack would provoke retaliation against U.S. military bases in the Middle East and targets within Israel.

Considerations of Regional Allies and Global Impact

The US-Iran standoff has put regional players on edge. During his visit to the US in early February, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly warned that any agreement without restrictions on Iran’s missiles and regional influence would be invalid. Israel has long viewed Iran as an existential threat, and analysts believe the Netanyahu government may be more inclined to push for military action aimed at overthrowing Iran’s current regime. However, the stance of US Gulf allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE is more ambivalent: they would welcome setbacks to Iran’s influence, but they also deeply fear that war could trigger a full-scale regional conflict, endanger their own oil and gas facilities and shipping security, and potentially activate pro-Iran militia networks across the Middle East.

Major European countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany), as parties to the original Iran nuclear agreement, were not included in this round of direct U.S.-Iran talks but are closely monitoring the situation. They generally worry that military conflict could trigger a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, a new wave of refugees, and severe turbulence in the global energy market. The price of Brent crude oil futures has risen by approximately 12% over the past month due to tensions, with the market remaining vigilant about the risk of a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, personally traveled to Geneva to participate in the negotiations, reflecting the international community's high level of concern regarding nuclear proliferation risks and the professionalism of verification mechanisms.

The next challenge

According to the plans announced by both sides, the next phase of technical talks will be held in early March at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna, Austria, followed by the possible launch of the fourth round of high-level political negotiations within less than a week. Al-Busaidi anticipates that if the political framework can be finalized quickly, the comprehensive implementation, including the verification mechanism and the handling of existing stockpiles, may take approximately three months.

The real test lies in the political decisions within Washington and Tehran. The U.S. President faces pressure in an election year, needing to balance demonstrating strong results with avoiding entanglement in a new war. Iran, under the strain of a continuously shrinking domestic economy due to sanctions, weighs the political cost of concessions against the practical benefits of lifting sanctions. The optimistic assessment by Omani mediators that a peace agreement is within reach must be understood against this realistic backdrop: diplomats are applying lubricant to the gears of the military machine, trying to slow down its engagement. Historical experience shows that in the Persian Gulf, war sometimes does not stem from deliberate decisions but from miscalculations and accidental events. Under the lights of Geneva, what negotiators are striving for may precisely be to avoid that moment and space where accidents occur.