Iran rules out interim deal in US talks, keeps military on alert during diplomacy

On February 17, while Iran’s negotiating team was in Geneva for talks with US officials, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered a stark warning in Tehran that reflected this outlook. “More dangerous than the aircraft carrier,” he said, “is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”

Soon afterward, state-aligned poets circulated verses declaring, “We are leaves; we will fall at the foot of this tree.”

Even as negotiations continue abroad, the establishment in Tehran—and its media ecosystem—appear intent on preparing the public not for agreement, but for the possibility of a decisive confrontation.

A shift in expectations

One striking difference between the current talks and previous rounds is the fading expectation of peace.

Earlier negotiations were framed by officials as diplomacy conducted from a position of strength—what Iranian leaders described as being “peace-seeking but capable of war.” Today, many voices close to the establishment express doubt that talks will produce an agreement.

Officials present negotiations primarily as a means of managing escalation and avoiding uncontrolled regional conflict. But in state-aligned media, a parallel narrative has taken hold—one that increasingly treats war as both plausible and potentially advantageous.

Some commentary focuses on technical readiness, discussing force posture and missile deployment. Other voices frame the situation in theological terms, arguing that divine providence will guide Iran to victory. Compromise, in this telling, is not pragmatic diplomacy but strategic defeat.

The comparison frequently invoked is Libya. In this account, Muammar Gaddafi’s decision to abandon his weapons programs paved the way for foreign influence, internal weakening, and eventual collapse. Agreement, within this framework, is seen as the beginning of the end. War, by contrast, could reset the strategic balance—producing ceasefire, deterrence, and renewed legitimacy.

War as mission and test

This outlook draws on a broader ideological shift that has intensified in recent years. The Islamic Republic’s political language has long contained religious and messianic elements, but such themes have grown more prominent following recent conflicts.

Within this framework, confrontation is as civilizational as it is geopolitical. Resistance, even at high cost, is framed as a test of faith in a larger struggle between opposing moral forces.

State-aligned commentators and officials increasingly describe the confrontation in existential terms. Military figures have shifted their rhetoric from deterrence to preparedness, suggesting Iran is ready not only to withstand conflict but to prevail. Structural weaknesses or social tensions are interpreted not as vulnerabilities, but as trials to be endured.

This perspective reflects a theological logic deeply embedded in the system’s ideological foundations. Victory, in this view, depends not solely on material advantage but on steadfast adherence to divine principles. Even loss or sacrifice can be reframed as spiritual triumph.

Such thinking also intersects with apocalyptic and messianic narratives present in segments of the regime’s ideological landscape, where the state is cast as an actor in a larger historical and religious mission.

The survival trap

Underlying these narratives is a stark strategic calculation. From the leadership’s perspective, compromise carries existential risks.

An agreement with the United States could require limits on Iran’s missile program, nuclear activities, or regional posture. Such constraints, Iran’s rulers appear to believe, would weaken the system’s core pillars and ultimately threaten its survival.

War, paradoxically, may appear less dangerous.

Proponents of this thinking frequently cite what they see as lessons from past confrontations, arguing that external conflict did not produce collapse or widespread internal revolt. Some even maintain that wartime conditions can strengthen internal cohesion and reinforce legitimacy.

This does not mean that Tehran seeks war for its own sake. Rather, it reflects what might be called a survival trap: a situation in which both diplomacy and confrontation carry risks, but only confrontation preserves the possibility of strategic recovery.

Iran’s military doctrine emphasizes asymmetric warfare and regional escalation, expanding conflict beyond its borders to impose costs on adversaries and create leverage. Such a strategy could transform a limited strike into a broader crisis, forcing negotiations under more favorable terms.

The paradox is stark. Negotiation is intended to prevent war. Yet the very act of negotiating—and the concessions it might entail—can appear more dangerous to the system than war itself.

In a joint statement, Representatives Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, said they would oppose the bipartisan Massie-Khanna War Powers Resolution, which seeks to require explicit congressional authorization for military action against Iran.

The lawmakers framed their stance around security concerns, saying the United States must retain operational flexibility. “This resolution would restrict the flexibility needed to respond to real and evolving threats and risks signaling weakness at a dangerous moment.”

The pushback comes as Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie prepare to force a House vote on their 2025 War Powers Resolution, which would require explicit congressional authorization before President Donald Trump could launch military action against Iran.

Khanna said he plans to use a procedural move to bring the measure to the floor as the US military completes its buildup in preparation for a potential strike on Iran.

Supporters say the measure is intended to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over decisions that could lead to war and to ensure lawmakers debate any move that could put US troops in harm’s way.

Gottheimer and Lawler said they respect congressional oversight but warned against tying the hands of the executive branch.

“We respect and defend Congress’s constitutional role in matters of war. Oversight and debate are absolutely vital,” they said, adding that lawmakers should be fully briefed on any planned military action under the War Powers Act.

In their statement, the two lawmakers also accused Tehran of continuing to pursue a nuclear weapon and rebuild ballistic missile capabilities following recent regional tensions. They described Iran as “the world’s leading state-sponsor of terror” and cited its support for armed groups across the Middle East.

The lawmakers further pointed to Iran’s domestic crackdown following nationwide protests in January when nearly 40,000 people were killed, saying they stand with Iranians “demanding basic rights and dignity.”

The debate is unfolding as the United States has surged military assets closer to Iran while simultaneously pursuing talks aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump recently said that regime change in Iran “would be the best thing that could happen,” underscoring the heightened stakes surrounding the congressional effort.

Multiple US outlets reported on Thursday that national security officials have informed President Donald Trump that the military has positioned the necessary air and naval assets in the region to carry out a strike “within days,” potentially even by the end of this week.

In Tehran, some analysts cautioned that the military moves could signal genuine escalation rather than routine pressure.

Political analyst Mohammad Soltaninejad told Entekhab: “If the negotiations fail or the US position changes—as happened before the 12-day war and in the middle of negotiations—it is possible that war could break out.”

Jalal Sadatian, a former Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom, said in an interview with ILNA that war remains an unattractive option for regional states, particularly given the risk of US bases in those countries being targeted.

“The balance is still tilted somewhat more toward negotiation than toward war,” he said, arguing that Trump appears to be “more focused on threats and exercising pressure.”

‘Real’ prospect of war

The military buildup follows the second round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, which ended Tuesday in Geneva without tangible results. Cautious optimism expressed by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has not translated into broad confidence in Tehran.

Financial markets have reacted nervously. Iran’s currency weakened nearly one percent in a single day, with the dollar rising toward 1,630,000 rials, reflecting broader concerns about the risk of escalation.

Prominent economic outlet Eco Iran ran an editorial on Thursday titled Diplomacy Under the Shadow of Military Movements, arguing that US deployments are not merely a show of power but “a sign of maintaining operational readiness in case tensions escalate.”

International relations professor Gholamreza Haddad told Eco Iran that talks proceeding to a third round is not necessarily a positive sign. He said the scale of US deployments suggests “real preparedness for military conflict,” rather than merely a threat intended to extract concessions from Tehran.

Agreement ‘a miracle’

Nour News, a site close to senior security official Ali Shamkhani, went further, suggesting that Washington might opt for a limited, symbolic action to demonstrate readiness without entering full-scale war.

“This scenario would symbolically test Iran’s deterrence and demonstrate America’s power,” the editorial said, warning that “the scene stands on the brink of crisis.”

Iran has also demonstrated heightened military activity. Over the past two days, it has conducted exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and a notice to airmen (NOTAM) was issued for a missile test in southern Iran scheduled for Thursday.

US affairs analyst Amir Abolfath delivered one of the more pointed warnings, calling a potential agreement “a miracle” and cautioning that sustaining any deal may prove even more difficult than reaching one.

“We may end up in war,” he told moderate outlet Khabar Online. “And even in the event of war, the problem may not be resolved.”

Speaking at the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace initiative in Washington, Trump hinted at a narrow timeframe for progress and reiterated US demands on Tehran’s nuclear program.

“It’s proven to be, over the years, not easy to make a meaningful deal with Iran. We have to make a meaningful deal; otherwise, bad things happen,” Trump said. “And you’re going to be finding out over the next probably 10 days.”

He added that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon” and must halt actions Washington views as threatening to regional stability, suggesting that military measures could follow if diplomacy fails.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is weighing an initial, limited strike on Iran as leverage to compel Tehran to accept US conditions in nuclear talks.

The report said Trump is reviewing targeted military options that could be executed within days if Iran refuses to halt enrichment activity, with the aim of strengthening US negotiating leverage without immediately triggering a broader conflict.

Also on Thursday, US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz doubled down on Washington’s pressure campaign in media appearances, accusing Tehran of stalling negotiations and saying that economic sanctions have strained the Iranian leadership.

“Even in the face of world condemnation over the killing of somewhere between 18,000 and 40,000 of their own people — an industrial-sized massacre,” Waltz said in an interview with Fox News.

Waltz said sustained pressure would continue even as diplomatic engagement moves forward.

'Obvious gap remains'

The head of the UN nuclear watchdog, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, said on Thursday that an “obvious” gap remains between the United States and Iran over uranium enrichment after attending talks in Geneva on Tuesday.

“It is clear that there is, there is this gap which is, which is obvious, between the position of the United States, which is demanding… no enrichment at all, and what Iran would like to continue to be doing,” Grossi told CNN. He added that while the agency has been allowed back into Iran, inspectors have not been granted access to the nuclear sites targeted in US-Israeli airstrikes in June.

Grossi said he believes the 400 kg of enriched uranium remains “where it was” before the bombings and has not been moved.

Brent crude rose to around $70.50 a barrel after surging more than 4% in the previous session, while US crude climbed above $65, as traders priced in the possibility of supply disruptions from the oil-producing region.

“The balance of risks now tilts to a US strike after market close Friday,” said Michael Every, senior global strategist at Rabobank, adding that any military action could last weeks rather than ending quickly.

European shares also edged 0.1% lower on Thursday after a mixed set of corporate results, with energy stocks rising alongside firmer oil prices as US-Iran tensions kept investors cautious.

Increased US military activity in the region has left markets on edge, despite diplomatic efforts in Geneva this week aimed at narrowing differences over Iran’s nuclear program.

• 

  Iran and US move forward in talks but tensions linger

Safe-haven demand pushed spot gold up 0.5% to around $5,004 per ounce, after a more than 2% jump the previous day. US gold futures also edged higher.

“If there’s anything fundamental you could point to that would be supporting gold prices, it’s the prospect of conflict in the Middle East and the kind of safe-haven demand that goes along with it,” said Kyle Rodda, senior market analyst at Capital.com.

Gold has also drawn support from expectations that US interest rates could ease later this year, though minutes from the Federal Reserve’s January meeting showed policymakers were in no rush to cut rates and some remained open to further hikes if inflation stays elevated.

Asian equities were mixed, with gains in technology stocks offsetting caution over geopolitics. MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan rose 0.4%, while Japan’s Nikkei gained 0.7%. South Korea’s Kospi jumped more than 3% to a record high, buoyed by renewed optimism over artificial intelligence-related shares.

Still, analysts said geopolitical risk was capping broader risk appetite.

“The two nations have long been at loggerheads over Iranian nuclear activity,” one market participant in Asia told Reuters, adding that any disruption to shipping routes or energy infrastructure could ripple through global supply chains.

For now, traders say oil and gold are likely to remain sensitive to headlines from Washington and Tehran, with volatility expected to persist as the prospect of military action looms.