Interview with Sasan Karimi: “For the U.S., an escalation would be pointless, but they must not make excessive demands”
24th February 2026 | 14:52
Adnkronos Editorial Staff
Iran, former deputy vice president: “A U.S. attack is avoidable; Geneva will be decisive
An attack on Iran “is not inevitable,” but the United States must “come back down to earth” in its nuclear-related demands. The talks scheduled in Geneva could represent “a concrete turning point,” one way or the other, marking a decisive step toward either an agreement or further escalation. This was stated in an interview with Adnkronos by Sasan Karimi, an Iranian academic and political analyst, professor at the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran, and former deputy vice president for Strategic Affairs.
“In my view, there is no formal deadline for the negotiations. However, this is a juncture that could represent a concrete turning point, in the sense that developments could move in a completely positive or completely negative direction,” Karimi said ahead of the third round of talks between Tehran and Washington in Switzerland. According to the analyst—who served as deputy to Mohammad Javad Zarif during his tenure as vice president (from August 2024 to March 2025)—the outcome “will significantly influence” relations between the two countries, as well as “regional stability, energy sustainability, and related strategic considerations.”
The professor believes that in this latest round of negotiations, which began in Oman on February 6, Iran is adopting “an extremely practical and objective approach” and is willing to “demonstrate the maximum possible flexibility, since there is no longer room for further maneuvering on either side.” If Thursday’s negotiations were to fail, he clarified, “this would suggest that the United States is making excessive demands. In that case, it would not be possible for Iran to respond positively.”
Karimi still considers a U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic avoidable, despite the significant military deployment in the Middle East. “Iran can still manage the situation through reasonable innovation and pragmatic decisions. At the same time, the United States should come back down to earth and recognize the reality: Iran cannot be easily removed or defeated,” the analyst continued. A different approach toward Tehran, he argued, could mark “a turning point for the Americans, who could enter a new phase in their relations with Iran and avoid an entirely unnecessary escalation, with the costs and instability it would entail for the region and the world.”
“An escalation would bring no benefit to the United States, nor to Iran, nor to the broader international community—perhaps with the exception of Israel. Donald Trump and some figures within the Maga movement should recognize that this is not an American strategic priority, but rather an issue tied to Israeli security needs, which influence U.S. decision-making dynamics,” the expert insisted. He sees “no reason or incentive” for Donald Trump and the United States to engage in what is essentially a “pointless” crisis.
“There are no real strategic oil interests that could justify it; on the contrary, it could entail significant economic costs for Washington, starting with rising energy prices and possible threats to infrastructure in the region,” he concluded.
