Tensions between Iran and the United States have once again reached a critical level during the month of February. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded that Iran quickly reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, while an imposing American military buildup in the Middle East—the largest since the 2003 invasion of Iraq—keeps the military option very much on the table. Indirect negotiations in Geneva and Muscat have produced only vague “guiding principles,” and Tehran categorically rejects U.S. demands to completely halt uranium enrichment and limit its ballistic missile program. For the United States, increasingly compelled to prepare for great-power competition, the Iranian file must be closed now.
The Roots of a Decades-Long Conflict
The friction between Washington and Tehran dates back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. Today, the central issue remains Iran’s nuclear program. In 2015, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) capped enrichment at 3.67% in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions. However, serious doubts persisted about the deal’s real effectiveness—it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program at all. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the agreement and reimposed crippling “maximum pressure” sanctions that severely damaged Iran’s economy.
Since then, Iran has progressively violated the enrichment limits: today Tehran is enriching uranium beyond 60%—a level unnecessary for civilian purposes and dangerously close to the 90% threshold required for a nuclear weapon. It has also amassed enormous stockpiles of enriched uranium.The internal protests of 2025–2026, brutally suppressed with thousands killed, further worsened the situation. Trump threatened intervention to protect the demonstrators, while Tehran accused the United States of fomenting unrest. The brief Iran–Israel war of June 2025 (lasting just 12 days), which included U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities such as Natanz and Fordow, slowed but did not stop Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile, Iran has deepened ties with Russia and China and continued to support proxy forces—Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq—that regularly attack U.S. and Israeli interests. Supreme Leader Khamenei has warned that any American attack would trigger a “regional war.”
What the United States Wants: A Comprehensive Deal or Regime Change?
U.S. objectives are ambitious and, in Tehran’s eyes, amount to capitulation. Trump demands permanent “zero enrichment”—not a temporary suspension—along with the dismantling of centrifuges and the disposal of existing stockpiles. This remains a red line for Washington, as reaffirmed by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio following the Geneva talks.Washington also seeks to severely restrict Iran’s ballistic missile program and force Tehran to end support for regional armed and terrorist groups: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria. Rubio has additionally raised demands concerning human rights and an end to domestic repression. Some critics argue that these goals implicitly point toward regime change, given that the theocratic system rests on revolutionary ideology and regional power projection. Unlike in the past, however, neoconservatives—the traditional advocates of regime change—are no longer in power.
Today, the primary U.S. interest appears strictly military and strategic: preventing nuclear weapons, limiting ballistic missiles, and neutralizing regional proxies.Trump has denied any intention to launch a large-scale invasion, but he has repeatedly hinted at “targeted” strikes to degrade Iranian leadership and capabilities, including the possibility of targeted assassinations. In short, the United States is seeking a denuclearized, demilitarized, and deradicalized Iran—an objective that many experts consider unrealistic without a prolonged conflict.
The 2025–2026 Negotiation Rounds
Over the past year, several rounds of talks have taken place between the two sides. In 2025, five indirect rounds (April–June), mediated by Oman, produced only minimal progress: Iran offered to reduce enrichment levels and allow IAEA inspections but rejected the goal of zero enrichment. A sixth round was canceled following U.S.–Israeli strikes.In 2026, amid suppressed protests and sanctions that have caused the rial to collapse (with inflation exceeding 60%), Tehran showed cautious openness. The first round (February 6, Muscat) resulted in an agreement on “guiding principles.” The second round (February 17, Geneva) saw Iran propose a temporary suspension of enrichment and the export of its 60%-enriched uranium stockpile in exchange for sanctions relief. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the talks as “constructive,” but denied that the United States had demanded zero enrichment—a claim contradicted by American sources.
Iran has promised a written proposal in the coming days, but many analysts consider significant concessions—especially those aligned with U.S. demands—highly unlikely. Tehran continues to insist on its “right to enrich” and refuses to discuss missiles or proxies. Trump remains pessimistic: he has issued an ultimatum of just a few days for a “meaningful deal,” warning that failure could lead to unpleasant consequences for Tehran. The talks continue to be mediated by Oman and Switzerland but remain limited to the nuclear issue, per Iran’s insistence.
The American Show of Force
In response to Iran’s reluctance and to expand available options while exerting maximum pressure, the United States has accelerated a major military buildup in the Middle East since late January 2026. Two carrier strike groups are now in theater: USS Abraham Lincoln (operating in the Arabian Sea since January) and USS Gerald R. Ford (en route to waters near the Israeli coast), each carrying more than 150 combat aircraft. Additional assets include over 120 aircraft (F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, B-2 stealth bombers), nuclear submarines, more than 14 warships, advanced missile-defense systems, and hundreds of tankers and cargo aircraft for logistical support.
Approximately 30,000–40,000 U.S. troops are already deployed across the region, and partial evacuations of non-essential personnel from embassies and bases have begun—a clear signal of preparations for possible strikes. This deployment—the largest since 2003—enables hundreds of daily sorties for weeks on end. Iran has responded with joint exercises alongside Russia in the Gulf of Oman, temporary closures of the Strait of Hormuz for live-fire drills, and heightened inspections of its air and naval defenses.
An Attack Imminent?
The probability of a U.S. military strike is significant, driven by the wide gap between the two sides’ positions and Washington’s perceived need to resolve the Iranian issue decisively. Several options are reportedly under consideration: limited strikes on nuclear sites and IRGC facilities to exert pressure, targeted killings, or a more extended campaign lasting weeks aimed at destroying missile stockpiles, nuclear infrastructure, and degrading Iranian leadership.Trump’s preferred approach, consistent with his past behavior, appears to favor precise, surgical actions designed to force negotiations rather than trigger all-out war. The risks, however, are significant. Iran could retaliate directly against U.S. bases in the region or indirectly through its proxy network. It could also attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, causing a dramatic spike in global oil prices. Israel has signaled readiness to join any U.S. operation, which would dramatically increase the risk of a wider regional conflict.
A Dangerous Crossroads
The current U.S.–Iran standoff embodies a classic dilemma in international relations: diplomacy versus force. The United States cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran in the region and feels compelled to close the file now. Conversely, the Iranian regime views nuclear capability as an existential insurance policy for its survival. A limited deal could theoretically emerge only if Iran makes meaningful concessions on enrichment—but that appears highly improbable at present.Absent a viable negotiated path, both sides may conclude that military action is the only acceptable option, potentially overestimating their own capabilities and underestimating the consequences. Only in the medium to long term will it be possible to judge the outcome of this perilous moment.
