February 19, 2026

SHARE |

Second U.S.-Iran Talks Yield Mixed Results with Middle East on Edge

Iranian Foreign Ministry via AP

U.S. and Iranian negotiators held their second round of indirect, Oman-mediated talks in Geneva on Tuesday — two weeks after resuming a negotiating process that was halted in June 2025 by Israeli and U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear, missile, and high-value regime targets. Iranian leaders agreed to resume negotiations in an effort to defuse U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of a major U.S. air and missile campaign — possibly joined by Israeli forces as well — intended not only to cripple Iran’s ability to project power, but more broadly to try to topple Iran’s regime.  As Trump adds to the already large U.S. force in the region, the success or failure of the renewed talks will likely determine whether the broader region calms or flares into a major conflagration.

Trump’s initial threats of military action responded to Iran’s killing of more than 6,000 protesters who participated in last month’s major uprising against Iran’s leadership. He vowed to strike key assets of the regime to deter it from using force against or executing protesters. Since the protests subsided in mid-January, Trump has used the U.S. deployments to add leverage to his efforts to compel the beleaguered regime to agree to concessions that would end the broad range of strategic threats posed by Tehran. For decades, U.S. and allied officials have identified those dangers as Iran’s enrichment of uranium to levels close to that needed for a nuclear weapon, its large arsenal of ballistic missiles, and its support for regional armed factions that undermine regional peace and security.

The first round of the 2026 talks, held in Oman on February 6, made no evident progress in narrowing the wide gaps between the parties, but met Iran’s objective to forestall any U.S. attack. Still, Iranian and global leaders assess that the Trump threat has not receded. As the talks convened in Geneva on Tuesday, a second Carrier Strike Group centered on the USS Gerald Ford was steaming toward waters near Iran. This week, another 50 U.S. combat aircraft — F-35s, F-22s, and F-16s — were ordered to the region, supplementing the hundreds deployed to bases in the Arab Gulf states. The deployments reinforce Trump’s threat — restated on a nearly daily basis — to proceed with a major air and missile campaign on the regime if talks fail. On the eve of the Geneva talks, Trump sought to add pressure on Iran’s leadership, saying: “I don’t think they want the consequences of not making a deal…They want to make a deal,” adding he would remain indirectly involved in the meetings.

For their part, Iranian leaders have sought to place countervailing pressure on Trump’s team by vowing to damage U.S. forces and spread conflict throughout the region if attacked. Coinciding with the Geneva meeting, Iranian naval forces closed part of the vital Strait of Hormuz for a military exercise. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned in a speech on Tuesday, as talks got underway, that Iran was prepared to retaliate against an American strike. He stated: “More dangerous than the American warship is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea…The U.S. may be struck so hard that it cannot get back up.” His and other Iranian statements sought to gain negotiating leverage by illustrating to Trump that the major unrest in January did not shake the regime’s grip on power, and U.S. force deployments will not force Tehran to capitulate to U.S. demands.

Against the backdrop of mutual threats, Iran’s efforts to use the talks to de-escalate were reflected in its official statements after the Tuesday round. Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, told Iran's state television the talks were "serious, constructive and positive." He claimed, "good progress was made compared to the previous meeting, and we now have a clearer path ahead…Various ideas were presented and discussed seriously. Ultimately, we were able to reach a general understanding on a set of guiding principles, on the basis of which we will move forward from now on and begin working on the text of a potential agreement. This does not mean that we can reach an agreement quickly, but at least the path has begun." However, Araghchi did not detail the elements of a roadmap or any potential interim agreement that might have been agreed upon. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who has been mediating the talks (as Oman did in the U.S.-Iran discussions in 2025), also described them as positive. He stated the discussions ended "with good progress towards identifying common goals and relevant technical issues." Albusaidi’s positive readout reflects the views of Arab Gulf states and other regional leaders that a U.S.-Iran conflict must be avoided, even if that means leaving the Islamic Republic in power.

U.S. officials, confident they can inflict unacceptable damage on Iran’s regime, were far less effusive, while also restating their commitment to exhausting the diplomatic pathway. One unnamed U.S. official told journalists the talks went "as expected." Other U.S. officials told Axios and other outlets that the discussions "made progress," but "there are still a lot of details to discuss," adding that the Iranians offered to come back in the next two weeks with detailed proposals "to address some of the open gaps in our positions." However, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, speaking to Fox News after the negotiations, suggested the Trump team assesses that Iran would likely be unable to meet Trump’s requirements for an agreement. He stated: “One thing I will say about the negotiation this morning: In some ways, it went well — they agreed to meet afterwards. But in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.”

Trump and his team have repeatedly defined the U.S. red lines for any agreement — to ensure Iran cannot have a pathway to develop a nuclear weapon, and to reduce the threat to the U.S and its allies posed by Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and its Axis of Resistance coalition partners. However, experts speculate the U.S. might adjust its expectations in the interests of obtaining an agreement and avoiding military confrontation. Some speculate the Trump team might accept Iran’s demand any agreement remain limited to nuclear issues. Tehran argues that its ballistic missile program is pivotal to its deterrence and cannot be subjected to limitations. Iran also refuses to accept any restrictions on its support for its Axis of Resistance coalition, which it seeks to rebuild after setbacks at the hands of Israeli military action over the past two years.

On nuclear issues, most experts concur that Trump’s red lines are immutable. His team reportedly again demanded in Geneva that any agreement must permanently block Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon by dismantling Iran’s infrastructure to enrich uranium (“zero enrichment”). Experts assess that Trump cannot agree to a pact that replicates the 2015 multilateral Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), which Trump abrogated in 2018 because its restrictions on Iran’s enrichment program were temporary. Yet Tehran continues to argue it cannot forever forgo its right to enrich uranium — a right it asserts flows from its standing as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Geneva, Tehran reportedly offered only to suspend enrichment for three to five years — a timeframe that would extend beyond Trump’s time in office. Iran reportedly is willing to eliminate its stockpile of 407 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium (close to the 90 percent level needed for nuclear weapons), the fate of which has been uncertain since the Israeli and U.S. bombings in 2025. For their part, according to press reports, U.S. negotiators offered only minor nuclear concessions, such as U.S. help with reopening the Tehran research reactor. U.S. officials also have not demanded Tehran shutter the civilian nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, assessing it does not pose a risk of nuclear proliferation. Iran reportedly is also asking for immediate sanctions relief upon conclusion of an agreement — a requirement categorically rejected by the U.S. negotiating team, according to media reports. On Wednesday, Axios  quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying they are “not optimistic” about closing the still wide gaps between the two sides.

Still, some assess that Iran is improving its prospects for a deal by seeking to satisfy Trump’s interest in expanding U.S. business opportunities in the region. Iran reportedly broadened its negotiating team in Geneva to include officials responsible for economic diversification and development. One official, Hamid Ghanbari, the Foreign Ministry’s deputy director for economic diplomacy, told the semi-official Fars news agency: "For the sake of an agreement's durability, it is essential that the U.S. also benefits in areas with high and quick economic returns…Common interests in the oil and gas fields, joint fields, mining investments, and even aircraft purchases are included in the negotiations.” He argued that the JCPOA “had not secured U.S. economic interests,” assessing that the lack of a U.S. business stake in the JCPOA contributed to Trump’s decision to abandon the pact during his first term.