The second round of indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, held in Geneva on February 17, 2026, ended — despite optimistic rhetoric — with a highly uncertain outlook. Public statements suggested “progress,” but the strategic reality indicates that both sides remain fundamentally entrenched.
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance stated that a certain degree of progress had been achieved during the second round of nuclear talks. Yet in practical terms, the parties largely maintained their original positions. According to Israeli analysts, the negotiations are, with a high degree of probability, doomed to fail.
An American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that Iran agreed on Tuesday to present detailed proposals within the next two weeks in an effort to bridge gaps in the negotiations. “Progress has been made, but many details remain to be discussed,” the official said, adding that Iranian representatives promised to return within two weeks with comprehensive proposals, as reported by The Times of Israel.
Source: Reuters
These remarks followed Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s description of the Geneva talks as “constructive” and his claim that agreement had been reached on their “guiding principles.” However, a senior Israeli official quoted by Channel 13 offered a far less optimistic interpretation: “Our impression is that this is a smokescreen,” he said, emphasizing that “the chances of reaching an agreement remain extremely low.”
That assessment may prove accurate.
Throughout decades of diplomatic engagement, Iranian negotiators have demonstrated exceptional skill in conducting prolonged and exhausting talks. Strategic ambiguity and delay have often worked in Tehran’s favor. However, in this case, time constraints may alter the calculus. The term of the occupant of the White House is limited to four years, and President Trump has signaled that he will not allow negotiations to stretch indefinitely.
According to CNN and CBS, citing their sources, Washington may launch strikes against Iran as early as this Saturday. On Thursday, February 19, President Trump publicly stated that within ten days it would become clear whether a deal with Iran would be reached — or whether the United States would have to act by force.
This statement was preceded by a February 18 White House meeting of senior national security officials to assess the situation. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner briefed the President on the outcome of the Geneva talks.
At the same time, Iran sought to broaden the scope of negotiations by proposing not only a resolution of the nuclear crisis but also the development of bilateral economic cooperation, including in the oil and gas sector, according to CBS News. The initiative appears designed to redirect the process and introduce economic incentives into the equation.
Yet this offer is unlikely to change the strategic picture. Tehran is unlikely to abandon its long-standing ambition of maintaining regional dominance.
Inside the White House, policymakers are weighing two major risks: the dangers of escalation if strikes are launched, and the consequences of restraint if no action is taken. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that President Trump remains committed to resolving the issue diplomatically and described reaching a deal as a “wise decision” for the Iranian government. However, given the ideological and institutional mindset of those shaping policy within the Islamic Republic, such a compromise appears improbable.
Source: CNN
According to CNN, on February 28 Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to brief him on the status of negotiations. Leavitt declined to clarify whether any decision on strikes would be coordinated with Israel. Nevertheless, recalling the experience of the 12-day war, joint action remains a plausible scenario.
Meanwhile, military preparations continue at an accelerated pace.
Axios reports that if President Trump decides to strike Iran again, it would involve a large-scale military operation lasting several weeks. Since late January, the United States has been steadily increasing its military presence in the Persian Gulf.
According to BBC Verify, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is currently positioned near Iran and is expected to be joined shortly by USS Gerald R. Ford, the most powerful aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy. The Ford has already entered the Mediterranean Sea and is expected to assume a position near the island of Crete.
BBC Verify also reports that the United States has established aerial refueling points at bases stretching from Rota in southern Spain to Crete in Greece. In the past week alone, dozens of refueling aircraft and transport planes crossed the Atlantic.
According to Flightradar24 data, 39 aerial refueling tankers have been redeployed closer to a potential theater of operations over the last three days. In addition, 29 heavy transport aircraft, including C-17 Globemaster III planes, have been repositioned to Europe.
Earlier this month, units of the 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade were deployed from Fort Hood to Europe via six flights. The brigade is equipped with Patriot and THAAD missile defense systems capable of protecting allied forces and U.S. personnel from missile and aerial threats. One C-17 aircraft from Fort Hood was dispatched to Jordan.
Former Pentagon official Mark Cancian has stated that the countdown to potential U.S. strikes would begin once the USS Gerald R. Ford assumes its operational position.
In recent days, the United States has also deployed F-35 and F-22 fighter jets to the Middle East. According to The Wall Street Journal, Washington has assembled in the region its largest concentration of air power since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The scale of these deployments suggests preparation not for symbolic deterrence, but for sustained operational engagement.
A potential U.S. campaign could last several weeks and involve strikes against a wide range of military and state facilities of the Islamic Republic. While a ground invasion remains unlikely, a prolonged air campaign conducted in coordination with Israel appears increasingly plausible.
Such strikes could significantly impact internal dynamics within Iran. There is a strong likelihood that U.S. air operations would intensify protests, particularly in Kurdish provinces and in Sistan-Baluchistan, where armed clashes with regime forces continue.
Jerusalem appears fully aware of the risks and is preparing accordingly. Various medical institutions, military facilities, and civil defense services have reportedly been mobilized in anticipation of possible escalation.
The strategic objectives of a military campaign would likely extend beyond nuclear containment. The broader aim could be the destabilization — and eventual overthrow — of the Islamic regime, to be replaced by a secular government aligned with U.S., Israeli, and broader regional interests.
There is also a significant geopolitical dimension. In the event of a successful campaign, Washington could strengthen its position regarding the Strait of Hormuz and Middle Eastern energy flows. Such control would have profound implications for global energy markets and could negatively impact the economy of Washington’s principal competitor — the People’s Republic of China.
For now, Geneva provides diplomatic cover. But beneath the surface, the indicators point toward a decisive shift.
The coming days may determine whether diplomacy survives — or whether the region enters a new phase of prolonged confrontation.
