Deal or conflict? Military risks linger as Iran-US diplomacy clock ticks

Dubai: As US and Iranian negotiators cautiously sustain indirect talks in Geneva, diplomacy is unfolding against one of the most heavily militarised backdrops in recent US–Iran history.

American carrier strike groups sit within operational reach of Iran, while Tehran conducts missile exercises near one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, with both sides openly warning of consequences should negotiations fail.

The fragile diplomatic momentum is also unfolding alongside fresh military activity. Iranian media reported that Iran and Russia will conduct joint naval manoeuvres in the Sea of Oman, days after Tehran’s Revolutionary Guards launched exercises in the Strait of Hormuz that briefly disrupted traffic through the strategic waterway.

The drills underscore how strategic signalling continues to shadow the negotiations.

Despite describing recent discussions as constructive, officials on both sides have acknowledged that major gaps remain.

Reporting from Geneva has emphasised that while “guiding principles” were discussed, detailed disagreements over enrichment limits and sanctions relief are far from resolved, according to media reports.

The uncertainty surrounding the talks has fuelled broader questions about Washington’s tolerance for prolonged negotiations.

President Donald Trump has hinted that diplomacy should not drift indefinitely, suggesting a rough timeframe of about a month for tangible progress. Such signalling, analysts say, reflects a pressure strategy designed to accelerate concessions without formally abandoning negotiations.

Vice-President JD Vance reinforced that ambiguity in remarks following the talks, indicating that diplomacy would continue but cautioning that Tehran had yet to acknowledge certain American red lines.

In interviews with US broadcasters, Vance suggested that the administration retains the ability to determine when negotiations have reached their “natural end,” a phrase widely interpreted by analysts as preserving the option of escalation.

Security experts argue that this dual messaging — engagement coupled with implicit deadlines — increases both leverage and risk.

Simon Mabon, a professor of international politics, noted in comments to NDTV that the coexistence of talks and military build-ups creates a precarious environment in which miscalculations become more likely.

He warned that without clearly defined parameters for what a deal would entail, each side may interpret the other’s actions through a lens of suspicion rather than compromise.

Such dynamics, he suggested, often characterise coercive diplomacy, where negotiations proceed under the shadow of credible force.

Against this backdrop, defence analysts have also revisited discussions about what US military planners might prioritise if diplomacy fails.

These are not operational target lists, experts stress, but long-standing categories frequently cited in strategic assessments.

Nuclear facilities remain central to most hypothetical scenarios. Deeply buried enrichment sites such as Fordow and Natanz are widely viewed as high-value assets due to their role in Iran’s nuclear programme.

Previous US and Israeli strikes have reinforced perceptions that disabling enrichment capacity would be a primary objective of any renewed campaign.

Iran’s missile and drone infrastructure is another recurring focus in analytical discussions. Western policymakers have long viewed these capabilities as integral to Tehran’s deterrence strategy, making associated production and storage facilities potential priorities in escalation scenarios.

Analysts caution, however, that any such actions would carry severe regional consequences. Iran has repeatedly threatened retaliation against US assets and allied interests across the Middle East, raising the spectre of a conflict extending beyond Iranian territory.

Professor Mabon highlighted this dilemma in his NDTV remarks, arguing that deterrence logic on both sides can unintentionally amplify tensions.

Even absent deliberate aggression, he observed, misunderstandings or accidental escalations could trigger broader confrontations.

For Gulf states and regional governments, this uncertainty is deeply unsettling. Many capitals continue to push for de-escalation, aware that disruptions to maritime routes or energy infrastructure would carry global economic repercussions.

For now, diplomacy remains alive but uneasy — constrained by mistrust, pressured by timelines, and overshadowed by visible military preparedness. Whether Geneva ultimately becomes the staging ground for compromise or confrontation may depend less on public rhetoric than on the still-unresolved technical and political trade-offs behind closed doors.