Tensions between Iran and the United States have once again reached a delicate juncture where conflicting waves of diplomacy and military pressure are simultaneously engulfing the entire region, and although the third round of negotiations is set to begin today in Geneva, the ground realities and intensity of statements indicate that this struggle between hope and apprehension could take a dangerous turn at any moment.
For this reason, countries around the world and the global economy are waiting anxiously. On the surface, both parties are present at the negotiating table, but the ongoing military preparations and threatening statements have clearly cast this process under a thick shadow of uncertainty, while it remains to be seen in Geneva’s tense atmosphere before sunset how diplomacy conducted under intimidation and threats can succeed.
In his recent State of the Union address, U.S. President Donald Trump once again claimed that the United States had completely “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear program last year so that it could never develop nuclear weapons. He said that following U.S. strikes, Iran had been clearly warned not to attempt any revival of its weapons programs, especially nuclear activities, yet according to him, Tehran is moving again toward the same “malicious intentions.” This stance reflected not only a harsh tone but also prominently contained the threat of possible military action.
However, a significant contradiction also emerged within the same statement when U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said that Iran is “only a week away” from gaining access to industrial-grade bomb-making materials. If U.S. strikes had truly destroyed Iran’s nuclear program entirely, then reaching this level in such a short period raises a major question. Experts have also expressed doubts about this claim, and neither the United Nations nuclear watchdog nor U.S. intelligence presented concrete evidence last year that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the third round of indirect nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran is set to take place in Geneva, where senior officials will demand missile limitations and the elimination of proxies. The Iranian delegation is led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who has departed Tehran for Switzerland, while the U.S. team is headed by Steve Witkoff and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Araghchi stated that Iran is committed to achieving a “fair and balanced agreement” and seeks productive progress in the shortest possible time. Reports suggest that Tehran may propose reducing its current stockpile of highly enriched uranium to demonstrate that its aim is civilian rather than nuclear weapons production, in a manner similar to the JCPOA.
On the other hand, President Trump, addressing Congress, said that his priority is resolving differences through diplomacy, but he also made it clear that if Iran does not agree, “bad outcomes” may arise. He had also announced on February 19 that Tehran would be given roughly 10 to 15 days. His statement that “we haven’t heard those secret words that we will never acquire nuclear weapons” reflects American distrust, fueled by a highly active Israeli lobby. Additionally, he accused Iran of developing missiles capable of striking U.S. territory in the near future and claimed that Iran has been involved in roadside bomb attacks in which U.S. personnel and civilians were killed.
Although Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian described previous negotiation rounds as “encouraging gestures,” he also warned that Tehran is prepared for all possible scenarios. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and civilian, and it will not compromise on national security. From day one, Iran’s policy has been that discussion is possible regarding the scope of nuclear enrichment, monitoring mechanisms, and transparency, but no compromise on defensive sovereignty or regional influence is acceptable.
This is the point where, due to Israel’s intentions and desires, the U.S. dual strategy becomes evident. On one hand, negotiation tables are arranged; on the other, U.S. military presence in the Middle East is being increased. The combination of flexibility in diplomatic statements and rigidity in military preparations is raising fears of a military confrontation in the region. In the past, we predicted that the likelihood of direct war between Iran and the U.S. was 70%, while the chance of no war was 30%, but observing the current statements, deadlines, and military movements, this ratio seems to be gradually changing.
If, God forbid, the U.S. targets Iran, it is possible that this confrontation will be limited, lasting a few days or weeks, but its effects will be extremely wide-ranging and destructive. Oil supplies in the Gulf will be affected, uncertainty will increase in global markets, energy prices will skyrocket, and the global economy, already under pressure, will face a new upheaval. At the same time, an increase in proxy group activities in the region and the involvement of Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Gulf states cannot be ignored.
And last time, when Iran attacked a U.S. airbase in Qatar, similar diplomatic negotiations and silent agreements followed; after a limited U.S. attack, Iran could repeat such an action to maintain its national honor and dignity and to give Donald Trump a path to declare his “victory,” though the likelihood of this is decreasing because Trump and his administration have brought themselves to a point from which returning is increasingly impossible.
There is a need for the U.S. to reconsider its policy and genuinely give diplomacy a chance rather than demonstrating power. Likewise, Iran must take transparent and confidence-building practical steps to alleviate the concerns of the international community. Otherwise, this confrontation could not only engulf the Middle East but also drag the Western world into economic and strategic instability. History bears witness that starting wars is easy and ending them is difficult, and if reason and prudence fail to control emotions this time, the consequences could be felt for generations.
