politics
February 11, 2026
The risk of war with Iran is growing despite talks
Current negotiations between Tehran and Washington are an opportunity – but a narrow one, surrounded by sharp edges
TL;DR
- Indirect talks between Washington and Tehran resumed in February 2026, mediated by Oman, creating a narrow diplomatic corridor.
- Iran has signaled a willingness to dilute highly enriched uranium if financial sanctions are lifted, while the US has accepted indirect talks.
- A core disagreement exists over the negotiation agenda: the US wants to include Iran's missile program and regional partnerships, while Iran insists on focusing solely on the nuclear file.
- Past experiences, such as Israel's preemptive strike in June 2025, highlight the fragility of diplomacy when military dynamics shift, leading to escalatory spirals.
- Heightened military tensions, American buildups, and reciprocal warnings between the US and Iran contribute to an environment where deterrence logic can overshadow compromise.
- Israel views potential US accommodation with Iran as a strategic threat and has warned of unilateral action if its red lines, particularly concerning ballistic missiles, are crossed.
- From Tehran's perspective, Israel's military freedom of action and perceived asymmetry in deterrent capabilities complicate negotiations.
- The US faces a complex triangle where Israeli concerns are intertwined with American interests, making compromise more difficult.
- China and Russia have significant geopolitical stakes, with China relying on Iran for energy security and as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia coordinating with Iran due to Western pressure.
- Speculation exists that the US might pursue regime change or strategic crippling of Iran to reset regional balances, which Tehran interprets as preparation for overthrow.
- The risks of war with Iran are substantial due to Iran's population, military structures, and asymmetric response capabilities, making any conflict costly and unpredictable.
- Despite the risks of war making diplomacy attractive, these same risks can encourage brinkmanship as sides attempt to deter each other.
- A narrow deal focusing on uranium levels and verification, with tangible sanctions relief, could stabilize the situation but faces challenges due to differing agenda priorities.
- Israel's posture and potential for unilateral action add volatility, potentially provoking Iranian counter-moves and further escalation.
- The current situation leans towards a scenario where military action dictates the agenda, with negotiation serving primarily to manage escalation rather than prevent it.
Continue reading
the original article