Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, are expected to meet in Geneva for what both sides describe as substantive negotiations, following weeks of escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington. Unlike their previous encounter, this round is slated to focus on concrete proposals, building on earlier talks in Oman and on messages relayed to Iran during a visit to Oman by Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, on behalf of the US administration.
Iranian officials are expected to present their formal response to the administration's demands and raise questions, chiefly regarding what benefits Tehran would receive if and when an agreement is signed.
Even as the talks proceed, senior administration officials have voiced skepticism about the prospects of a deal. Meanwhile, the US military buildup in the region continues, highlighted by the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford in the Middle East.
Still, both sides appear to be giving diplomacy a genuine chance, aware that once escalation spirals, it may be difficult to contain. The gaps, however, remain wide. Even if the administration drops its demand to include Iran's missile program in the negotiations, reaching understandings on the nuclear issue alone will be difficult, given Tehran's refusal to reduce uranium enrichment to zero or to transfer enriched material out of its territory.
The art of temptation
The Iranian regime, while maintaining its opposition to any discussion of its missile program and its regional proxies, appears to be trying to entice Trump with the prospect of US investment in Iran's energy sector. The move is widely seen as an attempt to soften Washington's stance on missiles and enrichment.
At the same time, both sides are preparing for the possibility of escalation. Alongside continued threats from Tehran and signaling through its proxies, including meetings with Houthi representatives in Oman, the US is reportedly searching for an operational formula that would allow for a meaningful military strike without being dragged into a prolonged war.
For its part, Tehran is demanding sanctions relief as a precondition for any nuclear concessions. The US administration, however, believes that further concessions can be extracted only in exchange for an American commitment not to carry out an attack.
Perception gaps
The divide is not only about positions but also about how each side reads the other.
Iran assesses that Trump fears a large scale military confrontation and would seek to end any war quickly. From Tehran's perspective, this reduces the incentive to offer significant concessions on additional issues. The US administration, by contrast, believes that reinforcing its military presence will pressure Iran into further compromises and that a limited yet impactful strike could shift Tehran's strategic calculus and open the door to far reaching concessions.
These contrasting assessments underscore that, absent a dramatic shift in positions, especially on the US side given the rigid red lines set by the regime and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the likelihood of a deal remains slim. This does not necessarily mean that a breakdown in talks would automatically trigger a US attack. Washington may opt instead to intensify economic pressure while leveraging its military advantage, avoiding a strike that lacks broad support among the American public and raises fears of another entanglement in the Middle East.
At the same time, Trump's statements and the ongoing military buildup are fueling expectations that a significant military move remains on the table.
Bottom line is, unlike the previous round, this time the sides are expected to engage in real negotiations based on weeks of dialogue and message exchanges through mediators. The risk of escalation clearly outweighs the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough. However, given US concerns about a wide scale attack and the intensive behind the scenes efforts by mediators, a willingness by the administration to align with at least some of Iran's positions could still produce a breakthrough that delays escalation, even if the chances at this stage appear low.
