IRAN and the US are in a scenario of high-stakes, simultaneous diplomacy and military posturing, where both are in negotiations to avoid conflict while simultaneously preparing for it. While the threat of war looms, talks continue aiming to find a compromise or to delay an “unwanted war”.
As of now, the potential for direct military conflict between the United States and Iran is considered highly volatile and serious, rather than mere speculation. Reports indicate that the risk of war has reached a critical, “50-50” point following intense military movements and stalled negotiations. Iran indicates a willingness to negotiate to reduce pressure, incidents like the harassment of a US vessel by Iranian gunboats and the downing of a drone illustrate the high risk of conflict, with both sides testing limits.
The ongoing tensions are raising concerns among regional neighbours about potential instability. The situation is described as a “dual track” of diplomatic negotiations and military preparation. Are the diplomatic talks a mere façade to get Iran while it is unprepared?
Probing military limits
US forces shot down an Iranian drone in the Arabian Sea that had “aggressively” approached the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. Shortly after the drone incident, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fast-attack boats swarmed and attempted to board the US-flagged tanker Stena Imperative in the Strait of Hormuz, requiring a US destroyer to intervene.
The US has deployed significant military resources, including multiple aircraft carriers (USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Gerald R. Ford) to the region, creating a tense atmosphere. Iran has held joint naval drills with Russia and tested missiles, signalling it is prepared for potential conflict while demanding that negotiations not be conducted under pressure.
While both sides are engaging in “probing actions” to test limits, the high concentration of military forces in the region increases the risk of miscalculation leading to a full-blown conflict. Iran has warned that US bases in the region would be considered “legitimate targets” if attacked.
While talks occur, they are hindered by wide gaps: the US demands a total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities, which Tehran deems a “fantasy” or a surrender. Iran has indicated a willingness to talk to relieve pressure, with officials calling for “dignity” in talks.
Israel is vigorously tenacious with the United States, to adopt a, tougher, more direct military stance to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacities, arguing that diplomatic efforts have stalled and the threat is immediate. Following a 12-day conflict in June 2025 where Israel and the US engaged in joint strikes on Iranian sites, Israel is now pushing for a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure rather than just halting enrichment.
Iran stubborn about its nuclear enrichment
As of February 2026, Iran has maintained that it will not abandon its nuclear enrichment program, asserting its right to peaceful technology while seeking negotiations based on “dignity and respect”. Following Oman-mediated talks in Geneva, Iran rejected US pressure to cease enrichment, even amid military threats from the Trump administration. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that while they are open to dialogue, they will not be intimidated into changing policy. Tehran demands that negotiations with the US be held on equal footing, rejecting coercive tactics. The Trump administration has threatened military action and demanded zero enrichment, targeting both nuclear activities and regional ballistic missile programs.
The talks follow heightened conflict in the region, with the US displaying increased naval presence to deter potential Iranian aggression. Despite the deadlock and renewed US sanctions pressure, Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful and complies with international regulations. Iran has maintained that it will not abandon its nuclear enrichment program, asserting its right to peaceful technology while seeking negotiations based on “dignity and respect”. Following Oman-mediated talks in Geneva, Iran rejected US pressure to cease enrichment, even amid military threats from the Trump administration.
Dangerous consequences of a war
If major war breaks out, the regional risks include catastrophic loss of life, severe economic collapse, and widespread destruction of infrastructure. Key dangers involve potential nuclear escalation leading to radiation fallout, intense food and fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential services, with high-density areas facing the greatest immediate threats.
A war-torn region will be compelled to cope with total disruption of trade, destruction of wealth, and intense scarcity of essentials like food and fuel. There would also be humanitarian consequences immense mortality rates, disability, and destruction of families and communities. If nuclear weapons are used, widespread radioactive fallout, severe ecological damage, and possible “nuclear winter” effects (dramatic temperature drops). In a worst-case scenario, hazards involve potential nuclear escalation leading to radiation fallout, intense food and fuel shortages, and the collapse of essential services, with high-density areas facing the greatest immediate threats.
The global economy will also confront its share of risks. There could be completel interruption of trade, destruction of wealth, and intense scarcity of essentials like food and fuel.
Containing Israeli pressures
Israel continues to apply maximum pressure on Iran through targeted strikes, targeting missile production and nuclear facilities, while calling for US support to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Israel opposes US-Iran negotiations and presses for a return to maximum pressure, taking advantage of Iran’s internal crises and economic woes.
The asymmetry lessens
On the surface, the US might seem far superior in terms of military assets. Iran It is dealing with terrain which its military prowess has not adequately assessed. Iran retains significant capabilities and threatens to target US bases in the region if attacked. Iran has rapidly reconstituted its military capabilities, fortified strategic sites, and accelerated its missile production. Despite significant damage to its infrastructure during the 12-day war, Iranian officials and analysts report that Tehran has rebuilt key production facilities, particularly for solid-propellant missiles, and bolstered its deterrence capabilities.
A preference for diplomacy over force
Diplomacy between Iran and the USA must work to prevent a catastrophic regional war, curb nuclear proliferation, and ensure stability in the Middle East. A diplomatic approach avoids the immense costs and dangers of military conflict, which could devastate regional infrastructure, disrupt global shipping, and trigger severe economic consequences.
Incremental steps will assist in limited agreements crucial for stabilizing the region. Active dialogue is the only viable framework to manage Iran’s nuclear program and prevent a nuclear breakout, which could provoke further conflict. Regional states are lobbying against a US attack on Iran, favouring diplomatic, policy-based approaches to handle issues like ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks. A successful diplomatic outcome could lead to sanctions relief, allowing for Iran’s reintegration into the international system, which is a major motivation for Tehran.
___________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
