Military option looms after US-Iran Geneva talks

Following the latest round of indirect nuclear talks in Geneva, Switzerland, concluded, a flurry of American and Israeli media reports suggested that the United States (US) may be edging closer to a military option against Tehran.

While officials publicly maintain that diplomacy remains the preferred path, the Trump administration’s tone has hardened noticeably. As negotiations stall and military deployments accelerate, the Middle East once again finds itself on the brink of a potentially transformative confrontation.

Limited progress in Geneva

The Geneva discussions, mediated through indirect channels, were described by US officials as having achieved “limited progress.” According to statements from the White House, gaps remain substantial on several core issues. Iran has reportedly signaled a willingness to suspend uranium enrichment for a temporary period (ranging from 1 to 5 years) and may consider reducing the concentration of its enriched uranium stockpile under international supervision.

However, the broader dispute extends beyond enrichment levels. Washington seeks to expand the scope of talks to include Iran’s ballistic missile program, its regional activities (meaning its support for its proxies; namely Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, and Iraqi military groups), while Tehran insists negotiations remain confined strictly to its nuclear file in exchange for sanctions relief. This fundamental divergence continues to obstruct any comprehensive breakthrough.

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, described the talks as complex but acknowledged that “a step forward” had been made. He highlighted, however, that time is not on the negotiators’ side; a warning that underscores the urgency felt in diplomatic circles.

A growing American military posture

Parallel to the diplomatic track, the US military footprint in the region has expanded dramatically. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is already deployed in Middle Eastern waters, while the USS Gerald R. Ford has been moving closer to the theater. In addition, more than 50 fighter jets (including F-16s, F-22s, and F-35s) have reportedly been transferred to the region within 24 hours.

Senior national security officials have briefed President Donald Trump that the US military could be ready to execute potential strikes as early as this weekend, though no final decision has been made. Pentagon planners are also repositioning certain personnel temporarily out of the Middle East as a precautionary measure against possible Iranian retaliation.

Trump has publicly warned that if Tehran refuses to reach an agreement, Washington could consider using the strategic base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; an unmistakable signal that the military option is not rhetorical. Simultaneously, White House spokespersons continue to stress that diplomacy remains the administration’s first choice.

Israeli preparations and coordination

In Israel, preparations appear to be intensifying. Officials cited in Israeli media suggest that Washington would not undertake military action without prior coordination or notification. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has reportedly elevated its defensive readiness to its highest levels, and emergency authorities have been instructed to prepare for possible escalation.

Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to continue consultations with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the coming weeks, especially as he arrives to Tel Aviv at the end of February. Informed sources indicate that a joint US-Israeli campaign, if launched, would likely be broader and more sustained than the 12-day confrontation witnessed last year.

Heightened alert levels are also reported along Israel’s northern frontier, amid concerns that Hezbollah could enter the conflict in solidarity with Tehran. Statements by Hezbollah’s leadership warning that the group would not remain neutral, coupled with Iranian rhetoric regarding turning the aforementioned confrontation into a full-fledged regional war, have added to the volatility.

Tehran’s countermoves

Tehran, for its part, has coupled diplomatic maneuvering with strategic signaling. Iranian forces have conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean, reinforcing the message that Iran is not isolated. President Masoud Pezeshkian has reaffirmed Tehran’s commitment to a long-term strategic partnership with Moscow, while Iranian officials stressed regional self-reliance free from external interference.

Simultaneously, Iran has issued aviation notices indicating planned missile launches in southern regions and briefly closed the Strait of Hormuz for live-fire drills; an unusual step that highlights the stakes involved. Given that roughly 1/5 of the world’s oil supply transits this chokepoint, even symbolic disruptions carry global economic implications.

Internal pressures within Iran

Complicating matters further are signs of domestic unrest within Iran. Commemorative gatherings marking the deaths of protesters have reportedly evolved into renewed anti-government demonstrations in several cities. Videos circulating online show chants against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and confrontations with security forces.

These internal dynamics may influence Tehran’s negotiating calculus. A leadership facing both external pressure and internal dissent must balance deterrence with survival, particularly if military strikes are perceived as threatening regime stability.

Diplomacy or deterrence?

The current trajectory reflects a classic dual-track strategy: negotiations backed by overwhelming force. The White House has repeatedly stated that Iran would be wise to conclude an agreement, yet officials also speak openly of “many arguments” that could justify a strike. Within Trump’s circle, some advisers reportedly caution against entanglement in another Middle Eastern war (referring to the failure of previous US military interventions in the region, most notably in Iraq), while others argue that credible military pressure is essential to compel concessions.

For Israel, the calculus is similarly complex. While Tel Aviv favors maximum pressure on Tehran, it must also weigh the risks of regional conflagration; especially if Hezbollah or other Iranian-aligned actors open additional fronts.

As reinforcements arrive and diplomatic drafts are prepared, the coming 2 weeks may prove decisive. Iran is expected to present a more detailed written proposal addressing US concerns. Whether that document narrows the gap sufficiently to avert escalation remains uncertain.

The region now stands at a precarious intersection of diplomacy and deterrence. If negotiations falter, the scale of military assets already in place suggests that any confrontation would be neither brief nor limited. Conversely, a last-minute compromise could recalibrate a volatile trajectory.

The question thus remains: will we be witnessing a expanded military showdown between Iran and both the US and Israel which could prove to be devastating and consequential not only for Tehran, but the wider region as well?