US-Iran Nuclear Talks: Progress, Stalls & Potential for Conflict

The United States and Israel have launched strikes against targets in Iran, with former President Donald Trump confirming “major combat operations” are underway. This action follows a period of intense, yet ultimately unsuccessful, diplomatic efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). While the immediate trigger for the strikes remains contested, the move appears to be a culmination of escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional proxy activities.

A Delicate Balance: Nuclear Talks and Shifting Red Lines

In the months leading up to the strikes, the U.S. And Iran engaged in multiple rounds of indirect negotiations, primarily facilitated by Oman, aimed at reaching a latest understanding regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Early February saw initial talks held in Oman, followed by two further rounds in Switzerland. Iranian officials publicly characterized these discussions as “generally positive,” and Trump himself acknowledged Iran’s expressed desire for a deal. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, a key mediator in the process, told CBS News that a resolution was “within our reach,” requiring only “a little bit more time.”

Though, this optimism was quickly tempered by public statements from Trump, who expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of progress. He asserted that Iran was “not willing to give us what we have to have,” specifically demanding that Iran agree to “no enrichment” of uranium. This position, while aligning with the long-held stance of Israel and some Gulf states, represented a significant departure from the original JCPOA, which allowed Iran to maintain a limited enrichment program under strict international monitoring. Iran has consistently ruled out completely abandoning its uranium enrichment program, maintaining This proves for peaceful purposes.

Albusaidi attempted to bridge the gap, stating that Iran had agreed to “never, ever have … nuclear material that will create a bomb,” and to blend existing enriched uranium stockpiles to the lowest possible level. He also indicated Iran would grant the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “full access” to nuclear sites, ensuring robust verification measures. This commitment, if fully implemented, would address key concerns about Iran’s potential to develop a nuclear weapon. The IAEA’s role in verifying compliance with any agreement is crucial, and its ability to conduct impartial inspections is paramount.

Beyond the Nuclear File: Israel’s Concerns and the Ballistic Missile Question

While the U.S.-Iran talks largely focused on the nuclear program, Israel has consistently argued that any deal must also address Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional proxies. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for comprehensive restrictions in these areas as a prerequisite for any agreement. This position reflects Israel’s long-standing security concerns about Iran’s ability to deliver weapons to hostile actors in the region, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the validity of these concerns, stating that while the president had the discretion to pursue a nuclear-only deal, Iran’s “insistence on not discussing ballistic missiles is a big, big problem.” This divergence in priorities – a nuclear-focused deal versus a broader regional security framework – proved to be a major stumbling block in the negotiations. Trump reportedly assured Netanyahu in December that he would support Israeli military action against Iran’s ballistic missile program if a diplomatic solution could not be reached, a signal that further escalated tensions.

Historical Context: From JCPOA to Current Crisis

The current crisis is rooted in the unraveling of the JCPOA, which was originally agreed upon in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, and Germany). The deal provided Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear program. However, in 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, reimposing crippling sanctions on Iran. This decision, widely criticized by European allies, led Iran to gradually roll back its commitments under the deal, increasing its uranium enrichment levels and reducing its compliance with IAEA monitoring.

The Biden administration initially expressed a desire to rejoin the JCPOA, but negotiations have been stalled for months due to disagreements over the scope of sanctions relief and the duration of the agreement’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has also demanded guarantees that future U.S. Administrations will not withdraw from the deal again, a demand that the U.S. Has been reluctant to meet. The collapse of the JCPOA has created a dangerous vacuum, increasing the risk of escalation and proliferation.

What’s Confirmed and What Remains Unclear

Confirmed: The U.S. And Israel have conducted strikes against targets in Iran. Trump has confirmed “major combat operations” are underway. Negotiations between the U.S. And Iran regarding the nuclear program took place in Oman and Switzerland in February 2026. Iran agreed, in principle, to limit its nuclear program and allow IAEA inspections. Israel has consistently advocated for a broader deal that addresses Iran’s ballistic missiles and regional activities.

Unclear: The specific targets of the strikes and the extent of the damage remain largely unconfirmed. The immediate trigger for the strikes is disputed, with differing accounts from U.S., Israeli, and Iranian officials. The long-term objectives of the military action are also unclear, as is Iran’s likely response. The future of diplomatic efforts to revive the JCPOA is uncertain.

Regional and Global Implications

The U.S. And Israeli strikes against Iran have far-reaching implications for regional and global security. The immediate risk is escalation, with Iran potentially retaliating against U.S. And Israeli interests in the region. This could involve attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf, missile strikes against regional allies, or support for proxy groups to launch attacks against U.S. Forces and infrastructure. The conflict could also spill over into neighboring countries, such as Iraq and Syria, which have become battlegrounds for proxy conflicts between Iran and its rivals.

Beyond the immediate security risks, the strikes could also have significant economic consequences. Oil prices are likely to spike, disrupting global energy markets. The conflict could also exacerbate existing humanitarian crises in the region, particularly in Yemen and Syria. The broader geopolitical implications are also significant, potentially leading to a realignment of alliances and a further erosion of trust in international institutions.

Looking Ahead: Procedural Next Steps and Potential Scenarios

The immediate next steps will likely involve a period of heightened military alert and diplomatic activity. The U.S. And Israel will closely monitor Iran’s response and prepare for potential retaliation. Diplomatic efforts will likely focus on de-escalating the conflict and preventing a wider war. The United Nations Security Council may convene an emergency session to discuss the situation, but any meaningful action is likely to be blocked by Russia and China, which have close ties to Iran.

Several scenarios are possible in the coming weeks and months. A limited exchange of strikes and retaliatory measures could lead to a stalemate, with both sides seeking to avoid a full-scale war. Alternatively, the conflict could escalate rapidly, potentially drawing in other regional actors and leading to a broader conflict. A renewed diplomatic push, perhaps facilitated by Oman or other mediators, could also lead to a de-escalation and a resumption of negotiations. However, the prospects for a successful diplomatic outcome appear dim in the current environment.

The situation remains highly fluid and unpredictable. The coming days and weeks will be critical in determining whether the current crisis can be contained or whether it will spiral into a wider and more dangerous conflict.