DiplomacyDefenseEnergyMaritime security
President Trump has said he will continue to exert influence on the resumed Geneva negotiations between Washington and Tehran in an indirect capacity as delegates reconvene for a second round aimed at nuclear constraints and the possible phased lifting of U.S. sanctions. The procedural talks follow Oman-mediated contacts and a separate Muscat meeting that helped lay the groundwork for direct and indirect exchanges on verification and sequencing.
Iranian negotiators have signalled a conditional willingness to accept verifiable limits on discrete parts of their nuclear programme — including proposals to dilute some highly enriched uranium stocks — while insisting on preserving a constrained enrichment capability and excluding discussions of ballistic missiles or certain defensive forces. Tehran has placed strong emphasis on negotiation design: reciprocity, agreed venue and modalities before substantive bargaining.
Diplomacy is unfolding alongside a stepped-up U.S. military posture in the region. The Pentagon has ordered redeployments of carrier strike assets — with the USS Gerald R. Ford identified as likely to arrive within weeks — and other U.S. carrier formations have been signalled into the area in recent days. CENTCOM has also scheduled multi-day aviation exercises to validate dispersed operations and surge capabilities; U.S. officials describe these moves as deterrence but they also serve as coercive signals to Tehran.
At the same time, U.S. national-security planners are evaluating force-enabling measures for partners, including air-to-air refuelling arrangements and permissions to use third‑country airspace, measures that would materially extend sortie range if approved. Regional friction has complicated those logistics: several Gulf partners have privately limited access to territories and overflight, creating chokepoints that affect planning and coalition options.
Iran’s security services staged a maritime exercise in the Strait of Hormuz as a countersignal to American force posture, while incidents at sea — intercepted drones, fast-boat approaches to commercial traffic and a close encounter with a U.S. carrier strike group — have underlined the practical dangers of operating amid high tension. Private trackers and security firms warn that attribution and competing state narratives at sea make legal and diplomatic responses fraught.
Washington has broadened its diplomatic footprint in recent days, dispatching senior envoys to the region to conduct shuttle diplomacy; the talks in Geneva also involve the International Atomic Energy Agency on verification measures. U.S. political leaders have publicly warned that a final accord will be difficult to secure given Iranian red lines, the technical complexity of sequencing sanctions relief and the political constraints in both capitals.
Domestically in Iran, a recent security crackdown, intermittent internet outages and sharp currency weakness have tightened Tehran’s political margins, creating both incentives and risks for compromise. Third-party facilitators such as Oman — and offers of support from Turkey — remain important to bridge process gaps and to shape a credible verification and sanctions‑relief architecture.
Operationally, the current mix of diplomacy and deterrence compresses timelines: visible naval and air assets increase the coercive pressure on Tehran but also bring high-value platforms closer to asymmetric countermeasures, raising the probability of tactical incidents that could derail talks. Market actors have already priced modest risk premia into shipping and insurance, and regional states have privately urged clearer incident‑management mechanisms.
Analysts say the Geneva round will test not only technical trade-offs — such as dilution, isotope benchmarks and stepped IAEA monitoring — but also whether parties can agree rapid, reversible mechanisms for sanctions relief tied to independent verification. Absent robust sequencing and guardrails, any tentative deal risks rapid unraveling under domestic or geopolitical pressure.
For now, the diplomatic window is narrow and fragile: it offers a pathway to reduce proliferation risk and ease economic pressure if negotiators can operationalise verification and reversible relief, but the concurrent military signalling and domestic constraints on both sides mean that missteps or ambiguous actions at sea could quickly escalate the situation.
Create an account or login for free to unlock our expert analysis and key takeaways for this development.
By continuing, you agree to receive marketing communications and our weekly newsletter. You can opt-out at any time.
U.S. and Iranian delegations met in Geneva on Feb. 17, 2026, for a second round of nuclear negotiations even as regional military activity — including stepped-up U.S. carrier movements and reported maritime incidents — raised the risk of a dangerous miscalculation. Diplomats continue to press technical verification and sequencing, while Tehran insists that reversible sanctions relief be part of any substantive trade‑off.
Iran signalled conditional openness to nuclear negotiations with the United States but insisted talks be equal, non-coercive and exclude its defensive forces and missile programmes. The move occurs amid a heightened security posture — including a US carrier strike group deployment — a recent deadly domestic security operation and sharp economic strain, all of which complicate the narrow diplomatic window and raise risks of inadvertent escalation.
President Trump publicly warned Iran’s supreme leader as delegations prepare for direct talks in Muscat, while the U.S. has massed a carrier strike group and flown regional exercises after recent maritime encounters that have increased the chance of miscalculation.
Iran has accelerated repairs and hardened several missile and nuclear-related facilities while holding naval drills and strengthening wartime command structures. Satellite imagery shows fresh concrete and earthworks at Natanz-area tunnels and Isfahan portals; U.S. forces—including two carrier strike groups—have increased presence while indirect U.S.–Iran talks and IAEA technical consultations continue without binding agreements.
Diplomatic talks between Washington and Tehran have stalled after strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, elevating the risk of further military escalation and complicating verification. The 2015 limits-based agreement remains the reference, but weakened inspection access and hardened political positions make a swift return to that framework unlikely.
Washington and Tehran will hold direct discussions in Oman after a series of maritime confrontations that included a U.S. jet shooting down an Iranian Shahed-139 drone and the harassment of a U.S.-flagged tanker. Private trackers placed the tanker encounter inside Oman’s EEZ, U.S. forces repositioned carrier and escort ships and launched regional aviation exercises, and Tehran set clear red lines for talks that could limit the scope of substantive bargaining.
President Trump set a ten-day deadline for negotiators to show whether diplomacy with Iran can produce an agreement, while warning that military measures remain available; the administration has paired visible carrier movements and CENTCOM aviation drills with shuttle diplomacy as some members of Congress prepare a War Powers Act challenge. Regional incidents at sea and limits from Gulf partners on basing and overflight complicate both operational planning and the prospect of a durable deal.
President Trump publicly warned Iran that a substantial U.S. naval formation is en route and urged Tehran to accept a negotiated settlement on its nuclear activities to avoid a major strike. He invoked a prior U.S. operation that targeted Iranian nuclear sites and framed the deployment as both pressure and a ready military option.