Geneva Talks: A Nuclear Tango or a Prelude to a Swift Military Strike?
Interview with Al Jazeera Arabic TV, dated 22nd Feb. 2026
The Geneva rounds conclude with optimistic statements about the possibility of an agreement, yet they proceed under the shadow of declared military pressure. Washington is employing the threat of a tactical strike as a negotiating tool to extract a swift nuclear deal, in a critical test of the limits of diplomacy between the two parties.
This framework places the talks within a strategy that can be described as "negotiation under fire," where the political table is not separate from military mobilization; rather, the latter is used to reinforce the former's terms and accelerate its pace.
In an analysis presented by academic and Middle East policy expert Dr. Mahjoub Al-Zuwairi on the program "Path of Events," the negotiation process appears closer to a unilateral track, with its ceiling set by Washington through clear demands, while Tehran is asked to provide quick and specific answers.
American demands focus on reducing enrichment levels, managing the stockpile of high-percentage uranium, and steering the program's course over the long term, with no parallel indicators of a clear schedule for lifting sanctions.
According to Al-Zuwairi, this imbalance in the proposed terms reinforces the impression that Washington is brandishing the military option not merely as a last resort, but as a phased pressure tool that can be used even during negotiations to impose further concessions.
The most sensitive scenario involves the possibility of executing a limited strike targeting specific capabilities, followed by a return to the negotiating table with even tougher conditions, presenting Tehran with a difficult equation between retaliation and continuing on the diplomatic path.
In this view, concession is not purely a technical matter but a sovereign decision linked to broader calculations involving the economy, technology, and the security environment. This makes any agreement without clear reciprocal benefits susceptible to domestic rejection.
In Washington, Michael Mulroy, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, points out that President Donald Trump approaches the file within the context of domestic political considerations, primarily avoiding engagement in an open war while not backing down from demonstrating firmness.
This balance between promises to avoid wars and the desire to project strength explains the insistence on a short timeline and a detailed draft agreement, reflecting a tendency towards a quick deal that can be politically marketed.
However, the nature of the nuclear file—with its technical and supervisory complexities—does not easily align with the logic of swift deals. Inspection arrangements, enrichment reduction, and stockpile restructuring require long and precise verification pathways.
This highlights the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Dr. Paul Dorfman, head of the Nuclear Consulting Group at the Bennett Institute, noted its technical capacity to verify the reduction of enrichment levels to those suitable for civilian use.
However, Dorfman simultaneously warned that any military targeting of nuclear facilities—especially coastal ones—could pose severe environmental risks to the Gulf, where several countries rely on seawater desalination for drinking water.
In light of this, Geneva appears to be a dual testing ground: a test of Tehran's readiness to make calculated concessions and a test of Washington's willingness to move from a logic of pressure to a logic of balance in the deal.
Persisting with threats might push Iran towards further intransigence, while completely removing the military option could be perceived domestically in the US as a gratuitous concession, placing the administration in a delicate balancing act.
Between these two boundaries, negotiations proceed at a sensitive pace, where any miscalculation could transform "tactical pressure" into a broader confrontation, difficult to contain or control.
The bottom line is that the talks are no longer merely a technical discussion about enrichment percentages and centrifuges; they have become an arena for redefining the balance of deterrence between Washington and Tehran.
Either the pressures are translated into a balanced agreement that eases tensions and establishes a sustainable path, or they turn into a spark that pushes the region towards a new chapter of escalation. Its most prominent lesson would be that negotiating under fire could burn everyone's cards.
Source: Al Jazeera
