Iran, held in Muscat, Oman on 6 February, and in Geneva on February 17, have been described by both sides as “constructive” but military tensions between the two remain high
The indirect talks between the United States and Iran, held in Muscat, Oman on 6 February had been described by both sides as “positive” and “constructive”. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the talks a “good start,” and President Trump described them as “very good”. However, there remained fundamental policy differences between the two sides. Iran flatly refused to end uranium enrichment or move its fuel offshore, which was a core U.S. demand.
Moreover, Washington pushed for a broader agreement that includes Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its support for regional proxies, while Iran maintained that talks should only focus on the nuclear issue. A second round of high-level nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran is scheduled. While the drumbeats of war between the U.S. and Iran seemed to have quietened down after indirect talks between the two sides in Oman on 6 February, the threat has again escalated with the US decision to deploy the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East to join the USS Abraham Lincoln.
However, the Geneva meeting between Iran and the US on February 17, 2026 , has provided a breather. It resulted in a shared understanding of “guiding principles” but has not yet produced a breakthrough that significantly changes the volatile situation on the ground. While both sides described the Omani-mediated talks as “constructive”, the underlying military and civil tensions remain high.
The Gerald R. Ford is being redirected from a long-term deployment in the Caribbean. The move reflects preparation for a “sustained, multi-week military campaign” rather than just a single strike, indicating the serious nature of the current standoff. The deployment is part of a deliberate, reinforced strategy to pressure Tehran to accept a nuclear deal, with President Trump warning of “traumatic” consequences if negotiations fail. President Trump has stated that the fleet is a “just in case” measure if diplomacy fails, warning of “very traumatic” consequences if a deal is not reached quickly.
The deployment of the Ford ~ the world’s largest aircraft carrier ~ is a huge increase in U.S. air, naval, and missile capabilities in the region, allowing for potentially weeks-long military operations if ordered. The combined fleets bring over 150 advanced aircraft, hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, and sophisticated Aegis-equipped missile defenses to the region.
Operating from the sea allows the U.S. to maintain strike capabilities without needing permission to use the airspace or territory of regional allies like the UAE, which has publicly restricted such use. The presence of two carriers enables the U.S. to conduct sustained, multi-week military campaigns if necessary, rather than isolated strikes. This deployment also signals a rapid response capability and is designed to deter Iran and its regional proxies from attacking US forces or commercial shipping, especially after recent incidents, including the shooting down of an Iranian drone by US forces.
The Iranian Navy has announced that it is tracking every move of the U.S. “armada” as part of its deterrence posture. Senior Iranian officials warned that any U.S. attack would lead to a “major war” and an all-out regional conflict. High-ranking military figures, including IRGC leadership, stated that their forces remain “on the trigger” and are prepared to respond with “vengeful blows” against U.S. forces and regional allies if provoked. State media reported increased activity by the IRGC, including the repositioning of missile units and air defense systems to reduce vulnerability to potential strikes.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi insisted that Iran “won’t be scared” by the naval presence, framing the deployment as a failed attempt at coercive diplomacy. Iranian defense officials reiterated that all U.S. bases in the region are within reach of their missile arsenal and would be targeted in the event of a strike. In response to U.S. pressure, Iran mobilized large crowds during the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution to demonstrate domestic unity against foreign intervention.
Despite these escalations, Iran has maintained it remains open to “fair and equitable” talks, provided they are conducted without threats or sweeping demands for regime change. The US build-up follows large-scale anti-government protests in Iran and a violent crackdown by authorities and coincides with President Trump’s recent comments floating the idea that a “shift in power” in Tehran would be the “best thing that could happen”. Despite his comments, Trump has repeatedly said that his preference is a diplomatic agreement.
He recently told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that nuclear talks with Tehran must continue. While Trump has used the term “regime change,” Vice President JD Vance recently stated that the U.S. is not actively pursuing it. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has noted that ousting the current leadership would be “far more complex” than previous efforts in other countries. The increased naval presence is also heavily focused on ensuring the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point for global oil, which Iran has threatened to block.
The carriers serve to prevent attacks on commercial shipping that have previously disrupted up to 12 per cent of global trade through the region. The dual-carrier presence provides a formidable deterrent against potential Iranian attempts to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for 20 per cent of global oil trade. This aims to prevent a spike in global energy prices, which analysts warn could exceed $150 per barrel if conflict erupts. Summing up, a realistic assessment would be that the Trump administration is focusing on exerting maximum pressure to force a nuclear deal and aiming to contain Iran rather than engaging in a total, resource-draining war.
A direct war could be costly, unpredictable, and potentially lock the US into another long-term Middle East engagement. Despite the preference for diplomacy, US military officials have prepared for potential sustained operations against Iran if ordered, indicating readiness for escalation. On the other side, hardline factions in Tehran, including the IRGC and powerful clerics, have publicly dismissed the talks as a “political game,” and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains deeply skeptical of US intentions.
A full-scale war could lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and trigger retaliatory strikes on US bases in the region, including in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. The situation remains high-stakes, with both sides maneuvering to avoid full-scale conflict while being prepared for it. On balance, it appears that both sides may eventually settle for a “temporary de-escalation”, as neither side currently may seek a full-scale regional war.
(First published in The Statesman, Feb 19, 2026. Republished on February 20,2026 with updates, with the writer’s permission)
(The writer, a retired IFS officer, served as India’s Ambassador to Kuwait and Morocco and as Consul-General in New York)
Be the first to comment