|
Brighty Ann Sarah
22 February 2026 |
CONFLICT WEEKLY NOTE
In the news
On 13 February, President Trump endorsed regime change in Iran, stating that it was the “best thing that could happen,” in the country. Washington also intensified the military build-up in the region by deploying a second aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, which joined the carrier Lincoln. Thousands more troops, along with fighter aircraft, guided-missile destroyers and other firepower, also joined the fray. Trump warned: “In case we don't make a deal, we'll need it.”
On 16 February, Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, asserted that “The missile issue concerns Iran’s national security, and we will not negotiate over it.”
On 17 February, Iran partially shut down the Strait of Hormuz, citing "security precautions" for shipping safety while Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards conducted military drills there.
On 18 February, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that understanding had been reached with the US on the main "guiding principles" that will frame efforts to resolve the dispute around Tehran's nuclear programme. On the same day, he asserted that the civilian nuclear programme was Tehran’s “inherent right is non-negotiable,” at the international conference on disarmament in Geneva.
On 19 February, the White House stated that Iran is expected to submit a written proposal on how to resolve its standoff with the US. President Trump has ordered a major military buildup in the region, and full forces are expected to be in place by mid-March. The White House said there are many "reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against Iran," but that diplomacy is always the first option.
Issues at large
First, a brief note on the Geneva talks and the inconclusive progress. The talks on 17 February in Geneva, Switzerland, marked the second round of Oman-mediated indirect negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, following an initial round in Oman earlier. Iran’s delegation was led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and a set of technical experts, while special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner led the US delegation. The talks focused on the terms of Iran’s nuclear programme. The crisis echoes a previous round of talks in April 2025, which culminated in the joint US-Israel strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Second, Washington’s broad-ranging demands and Tehran’s resistance. The US remains steadfast on several critical demands on Iran’s nuclear and defence programmes, claiming them as essential red lines to eliminate nuclear breakout risks and regional threats. Reports state that the US urged Iran to permanently forgo uranium enrichment, a "zero enrichment" principle, alongside restrictions on its ballistic missile program and limits on support for regional proxies. Iran has staunchly resisted these expansive conditions, rejecting any permanent halt to domestic enrichment, which it views as a sovereign right and core to its civilian nuclear programme, and refusing to discuss missiles or proxies, insisting talks remain strictly nuclear-focused in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran offered compromises like temporary enrichment suspension, diluting high-enriched uranium stockpiles, and enhanced IAEA access to damaged sites, but these fall short of US maximalist positions. This core mismatch led to agreement only on "guiding principles" for future talks, but no breakthrough on the fundamental gaps.
Third, Washington’s coercive diplomacy and heightened fears of military action. The US has bolstered the indirect talks with explicit threats of military action. Washington’s extensive military buildup, notably the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, aims to coerce Iran to negotiate on US terms. Tehran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei has also issued threats about striking the US vessels.
In perspective
For the US, Washington’s diplomacy is overshadowed by coercion to secure a favourable outcome, aiming to limit Tehran’s influence as a regional power. It seems to view Iran’s current political and economic challenges as an opportunity to strengthen its bargaining position in the negotiations.
For Iran, the terms of the negotiations remain widely asymmetrical, as Washington is demanding far beyond the neutralization of its nuclear weapons programme. The US military posture in the region also adds to Iran’s pressure. However, despite recent economic difficulties and internal political strain, Tehran maintains a firm, defensive stance, presenting itself as a sovereign power and a deterrent.
For the region, any escalation could have far-reaching regional consequences. The visible military buildup on both sides has already raised fears of a broader conflict. If Iran retaliates, US military bases across the Gulf could be targeted, potentially drawing in countries including Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Unlike the short 12-day war involving Israel, a larger US-Iran confrontation would likely extend beyond a single front.
