When negotiations are forced, as they are today in Geneva between the United States and Iran, peace is already lost. Even a compromise reached today would only hold until the next escalation, because power never tolerates a lasting balance—and a compromise that is forced is no compromise at all. Peace does not come from negotiations. It emerges only when power stops interfering—when one side does not exploit, threaten, or subordinate the other.
Iran’s Controlled Optimism
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Geneva for the second round of talks, declaring that an agreement is “within reach—but only if diplomacy is given priority.”
This was not a concession but a strategic signal: Tehran presents itself as open to dialogue while positioning Washington to bear responsibility if the talks collapse. Araghchi reiterated that Iran will “under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,” while insisting on its right to peaceful nuclear technology.
These dual messages—openness on process, firmness on sovereignty—define Iran’s posture as the talks begin.
Tehran’s red lines remain unchanged: no abandonment of enrichment, no negotiations over its missile program, and no arrangement that leaves the country strategically exposed.
Iran is prepared to discuss sanctions relief and transparency—but not the dismantling of its deterrence.
Iran’s Parallel Preparations
CNN reports that Iran has spent recent months repairing key missile facilities, reinforcing damaged air bases, concealing elements of its nuclear program, appointing wartime veterans to senior security posts, conducting naval drills in the Persian Gulf, and intensifying its crackdown on domestic dissent. These steps signal that Tehran is preparing for the possibility of a U.S. strike even as it participates in the Geneva talks. Iran presents itself as open to diplomacy, but its military posture reflects a different calculation: any agreement reached under pressure may not hold, and deterrence remains its ultimate guarantee of survival.
Trump’s Speech: Ultimatums Disguised as Diplomacy
Forty‑eight hours before the Geneva session, President Donald Trump escalated tensions in his State of the Union address. He labeled Iran “the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism” and claimed the regime had killed more than 32,000 protesters since December 2025. He added that a deal was possible if Iran would simply utter what he called the “sacred sentence”: We will not build nuclear weapons.
This was not a diplomatic offer but an ultimatum. It reframed the talks as a test of submission rather than a dialogue between sovereign states. Diplomacy, in this formulation, becomes a vehicle for enforcing American conditions rather than a process aimed at reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.
U.S. Threat Framing: Expanding the Definition of “Unacceptable”
U.S. officials reinforced this posture. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran is extending the range of its missiles and could one day develop systems capable of reaching the United States. He added that Iran already possesses weapons that threaten Europe and questioned how Tehran continues to fund missile development despite sanctions.
The message is clear: Washington continually expands what it considers “unacceptable,” while demanding that Tehran narrow its own capabilities. This is not a negotiation between equals; it is an attempt to impose strategic limits on one side alone.
Military Signaling: The USS Gerald R. Ford in Crete
The USS Gerald R. Ford is currently docked in Crete for refueling—a detail reported by Euronews with strategic significance. Crete is one of the most important U.S. naval hubs in the Mediterranean. A carrier strike group refueling there is not preparing to return home; it is preparing for operations.
Two days before the Geneva talks, this deployment sends a clear message: the United States negotiates under the protection of overwhelming force. Diplomacy is not taking place because war has been ruled out, but because war remains an active option.
A Region on Edge: Geneva as a “Last Chance”
Several international outlets describe today’s meeting as a “last chance” for diplomacy. Several countries have issued travel warnings, and some have withdrawn embassy staff. The reason is clear: the United States has assembled its largest regional military presence in decades. If Washington intended to strike Iran, the necessary assets are already in place.
Iran, meanwhile, shows no indication of making concessions. Tehran appears to calculate that displaying weakness would be more dangerous than absorbing a limited U.S. strike. The leadership believes it can survive a military blow—but not the loss of its deterrence.
The Collapse of Arms Control
The Geneva talks unfold against the backdrop of a dismantled arms‑control architecture. The United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the INF Treaty collapsed in 2019, Russia left the CFE Treaty in 2023, and New START—the last remaining strategic arms control agreement—expired in 2026. There are now no binding limits on U.S. or Russian strategic arsenals.
At the same time, all five nuclear‑weapon states under the NPT are modernizing their arsenals. Article VI obligates them to pursue disarmament, yet the trajectory is moving in the opposite direction. States that refuse to limit their own capabilities demand that Iran restrict its defensive capacity. This is not diplomacy; it is hierarchy.
Two Crises, One Logic: Iran and Ukraine
The same U.S. envoys who conduct indirect nuclear talks with Iran in the morning pressure Ukraine to accept territorial concessions in the afternoon. Two crises, two regions, two political realities—but one underlying principle: states without deterrence negotiate under pressure; states with deterrence negotiate on their own terms.
Hours before the Geneva session, Iran conducted live‑fire drills and temporarily closed the Strait of Hormuz. The message is unmistakable: Iran is not Ukraine. It cannot be coerced through diplomacy alone.
Why Geneva Cannot Produce Diplomacy
The Geneva talks cannot resolve the Iran crisis because diplomacy cannot function when the core issue is sovereignty. The United States seeks security by preventing Iran from obtaining deterrence; Iran seeks security by maintaining it. These positions cannot be reconciled through dialogue. They reflect two incompatible visions of international order: one based on containment, the other on self‑defense.
As long as power overrides law, diplomacy becomes a performance rather than a process. And as long as the international system punishes weakness and fears strength, Geneva will not produce peace. It will only reveal how unequal the world order truly is — and how deeply coercion has been normalized as a substitute for diplomacy.
Read more:
