What Comes After the Geneva Nuclear Negotiations Between Iran and the United States?

SadaNews - In a dramatic turn, the positive statements following the recent round of nuclear negotiations in Geneva turned into American threats of launching a military attack on Iran if no agreement is reached within 15 days, indicating that the ongoing tension between the two sides has reached a pivotal stage.

With increasing military mobilization in the region, eyes are focused on the Swiss capital, where the third round of negotiations is scheduled for next Thursday to discuss an Iranian proposal draft for a potential agreement that Tehran considers "within reach".

Media leaks suggest that the Iranian paper will represent its maximum concessions that can be presented at the negotiating table to save the diplomatic track; observers believe that if the proposal does not satisfy Washington and President Donald Trump cannot market it domestically as a "significant achievement," the nuclear file will take a decisive turn this week: either an agreement in the last moments or entering a dark tunnel of escalation.

Driver of the Conflict

For his part, academic researcher in international relations, Yasser Shamani, anticipates that the ongoing negotiations will reach a deadlock and a limited war will erupt between the two parties in the coming stage, because in the current global system, interests determine the policies and strategies of global powers, but the benefits sought by the American president clash with Iranian ideology, making it impossible for Tehran to offer substantive concessions.

Regarding the reason for the stalled negotiations, Shamani explains in an interview with Al Jazeera Net that the talks in Muscat and Geneva made limited progress that cannot be relied upon, as the existing stalemate is due not only to the lack of trust but also to the disagreement over the components of hard power; Iran considers enrichment and missile capabilities as tools to ensure survival in a turbulent regional environment, while Washington sees these components as signs of a gradual shift in the balance of power.

According to him, the main reason for the Iranian-American conflict is not bilateral, "but one must look for the main driver in its continuation and escalation in Tel Aviv." He believes that Israel will not allow for a permanent calm between Tehran and Washington, and it moves with all its weight to thwart any possible rapprochement, adding that even if the current negotiations result in an agreement, "the outcome will not be satisfactory for America and Israel, and we will return to tensions again."

What makes the situation worse, according to Shamani, is that Iran has come to the conclusion that the United States is not a reliable player, after it tore up the nuclear agreement in 2018, and gave the green light to Israel to launch an attack on it last June and also took part in the war against it.

Battle for Dominance

The researcher Shamani believes that the current confrontation between Tehran and Washington is a link in a longer chain of global competition among great powers, where Iran plays the role of the "winning card" that both Eastern and Western powers seek to incorporate into their axis in the battle for international dominance.

He spoke of a broader geopolitical dimension to the conflict, explaining that Russia and China seek to form an Eastern tripartite with Tehran, while in the West, America and Europe want to integrate Iran into the global system they aspire to, adding that whoever can bring it to their side can weaken the opposite party.

Thus, Tehran becomes, according to him, a "field of competition" more than an independent player, where every decision or action in the nuclear and missile files or Iranian regional influence is part of a larger American design aimed at pressuring it before focusing on China.

The researcher noted that the closer Iran gets to Western or Eastern powers, the more it faces strikes, and thus it has tried to rely on its own strengths and form a resistance axis, adding that under the current circumstances, since Tehran has suffered the most severe blows from the Western side, it sees Eastern powers as real support.

He paints a bleak picture of the near future, confirming that the region has entered a phase where military mobilization is denser, the negotiations have reached a point of power friction, and key players are monitoring developments and redefining thresholds and red lines, asserting that until a mechanism for managing this conflict is formed, the region will remain in a state of high-risk suspension.

Decisive Round

For his part, researcher in Iranian-American relations, Amir Ali Abou Al-Fattah, believes that the Geneva-2 negotiations will be decisive, as their results will be closely linked to the content of the package of proposals that Tehran will present, noting that the failure of the Iranian proposal to meet American demands "could lead to increased tension, but it does not necessarily mean the start of war".

In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Abou Al-Fattah referred to the nature of the current confrontation that combines active diplomatic tracks and intense military mobilizations, confirming that positive sporadic news about the progress of the negotiations is heard from here and there, but the pace of military escalation is concerning at the same time, reflecting the duality of the current scene.

He revealed a complicated reality that Iranian society is living under the rising threats; on one hand, normal life continues, while on the other, the anxiety of war has become a constant topic in people's daily conversations as they are divided over the potential outcomes of the war and the winning side, where calls from officials to return to normal life have not been uniformly reflected among everyone, making the Iranian street "more like a mosaic of conflicting feelings between fear, hope, and anger".

The researcher emphasized that Tehran has prepared itself for all scenarios, indicating that regardless of the outcome of the next round of negotiations, the military institution's fingers will remain on the trigger while it continues its efforts to complete the political track, adding that this integration between the field and diplomacy reflects an Iranian strategy aimed at achieving the maximum possible gains while minimizing risks.

As Washington threatens to launch an attack on Tehran if no agreement is reached, Iran operates on two parallel tracks: initiating a diplomatic plan to avoid war, and enhancing its deterrent capabilities to face it. The coming days will determine which of the two scenarios will prevail; will diplomacy succeed in defusing the crisis, or will the region slip into a wide-ranging confrontation?

Source: Al Jazeera