The first phase of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran has revived a critical question dominating global geopolitics: Has a US military attack on Iran been averted—at least for now? Following talks in Geneva, mediated by Oman, both sides cautiously signaled progress on what they described as “guiding principles” to resolve disputes over Iran’s nuclear programme.
Yet, this diplomatic opening unfolds against the backdrop of unprecedented military posturing, harsh rhetoric, and deep mistrust. The convergence of diplomacy and deterrence makes these talks less about reconciliation and more about managing escalation in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
What Was Achieved in the First Phase?
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that Tehran and Washington had reached an understanding on broad principles, though he stressed that “work still needs to be done.” The US echoed this cautiously optimistic tone, with officials stating that “progress was made” but many details remain unresolved.
Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi, acting as mediator, framed the Geneva talks as constructive, noting progress toward identifying “common goals and relevant technical issues.” This language is significant: it suggests the talks moved beyond symbolic engagement into substantive, if preliminary, negotiation.
Crucially, Iran indicated it would return within weeks with detailed proposals to bridge remaining gaps—an implicit signal that Tehran sees value in continuing diplomacy rather than provoking confrontation.
Why Geneva Matters
The choice of Geneva—a city synonymous with Cold War-era diplomacy—underscores the gravity of the moment. Talks were held at the residence of Oman’s ambassador, emphasizing their indirect nature and the fragility of trust between Washington and Tehran.
For Iran, Geneva represented an opportunity to refocus negotiations narrowly on:
-
Its nuclear programme
-
The potential lifting of US economic sanctions
For Washington, however, the agenda appears broader, with repeated signals that Iran’s missile development and regional activities remain major concerns. This asymmetry in priorities is one of the core challenges facing future negotiation rounds.
Trump’s Strategy: Diplomacy Backed by Bombers
US President Donald Trump has framed the talks in stark, transactional terms. Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump suggested Iran is negotiating not out of goodwill but fear of consequences.
He explicitly referenced previous US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, arguing that Tehran had already experienced the costs of defiance. His message was unambiguous: diplomacy is available, but military force remains on the table.
This approach reflects a classic coercive diplomacy model—talks conducted under the shadow of credible military threats. While this may pressure Iran to engage, it also risks reinforcing Tehran’s long-standing narrative that Washington negotiates in bad faith.
