The next round of indirect nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran is scheduled to take place in Geneva on Thursday, according to Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Al Busaidi, who has been mediating the discussions. The talks aim to provide a "positive push" toward finalising a diplomatic resolution to the prolonged nuclear standoff. The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, is ready with a detailed counterproposal to US envoys Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. This follows an earlier round of Geneva talks on February 17 (and one before that in Muscat) that established an understanding of core "guiding principles".
According to diplomatic sources, Washington made clear it would only proceed with further discussions if Tehran submitted a comprehensive and substantive proposal in advance. Since Iran has prepared one, the stage is set for what could prove a decisive encounter. Also expected to be present is Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose technical assessments will be crucial to any future monitoring arrangement.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
At the heart of the negotiations lies the issue that has long defined the standoff: Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. The US has historically pressed for a strict policy of ‘zero enrichment’, arguing that any domestic enrichment capability leaves open a potential pathway to weaponisation. After the previous round, US Vice President JD Vance said that Tehran had yet to acknowledge Trump’s ‘red lines’. Nevertheless, American negotiators have signalled that they might consider a tightly circumscribed arrangement allowing limited or ‘token’ enrichment, provided Iran can verifiably block every route to a nuclear weapon.
From the Iranian perspective, halting all enrichment is a non-starter. Araghchi framed the issue as a matter of national "dignity and pride," emphasising the massive costs—including decades of US sanctions and the targeted assassinations of scientists—that Iran has endured for this technology. Tehran believes that as a member of the NPT regime, it is entitled to develop peaceful nuclear energy under international safeguards. However, it appears ready to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and commit to a comprehensive and permanent monitoring regime overseen by the IAEA instead of completely dismantling its enrichment infrastructure. Iranian officials say this would include intrusive inspections and technical guarantees designed to ensure that the programme remains exclusively civilian in nature. Araghchi has also firmly rejected efforts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to broaden the scope of the talks to include Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its regional alliances, insisting that the negotiations are confined strictly to the nuclear file.
Iranian officials have suggested that a new agreement could be structurally stronger than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, offering longer timelines and clearer enforcement mechanisms. Yet scepticism persists. Many analysts have warned that if Washington adheres to maximalist demands, particularly on enrichment, even generous Iranian concessions may not suffice to secure a deal. Much will depend on whether both sides are prepared to compromise on symbolic red lines in favour of practical safeguards.
The diplomatic effort is unfolding against an atmosphere of acute military pressure. Donald Trump has issued a stark 10- to 15-day deadline for Iran to accept what he calls a fair agreement, warning of severe consequences should diplomacy fail. He has openly acknowledged that he is considering limited military strikes. In a visible demonstration of force, the United States has deployed substantial naval assets to the Middle East, including the aircraft carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford.
US envoy Witkoff has remarked that the president is “curious” as to why Iran has not yet “capitulated”, given the overwhelming American naval presence. He has also claimed that Iran could theoretically be only a week away from securing sufficient industrial-grade material for a bomb, though such assessments are contested. Within Washington, there are divisions. Some advisers caution against further military entanglement in the region, while figures such as Senator Lindsey Graham have urged the president to act decisively if talks collapse.
Tehran has responded with a mixture of defiance and conditional openness. Araghchi has said Iran seeks a diplomatic ‘win-win’ solution but reserves the absolute right to defend itself if attacked. Iranian officials argue that military threats will not produce capitulation, but rather harden domestic opinion against compromise.
Complicating matters further is Iran’s internal political climate. Universities reopened over the weekend for the first time since a deadly wave of unrest, triggering renewed student demonstrations at institutions including Sharif University of Technology and Amirkabir University of Technology, as well as campuses in Mashhad. Students gathered to commemorate those killed during the recent crackdown, leading to clashes with state-backed Basij militia and pro-government groups. Protesters were reported to have chanted slogans associated with the pre-1979 monarchy, while counter-demonstrators burned US and Israeli flags.
Amid this turbulence, reports suggest a subtle shift in Iran’s internal power dynamics. According to The Guardian, US officials believe Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian are being increasingly marginalised in the nuclear file, with Araghchi and veteran politician Ali Larijani assuming greater influence. Meanwhile, several figures associated with the Reformists Front coalition, close to Pezeshkian, have reportedly faced arrests after criticising the security forces’ handling of the protests.
The Geneva talks represent a high-stakes convergence of diplomacy, military brinkmanship and domestic instability. Whether they culminate in a durable agreement or deepen the confrontation may depend as much on internal political calculations in Washington and Tehran as on the technical details of centrifuges and inspection regimes.