US-Iran nuclear talks ended without agreement on Thursday, heightening fears of open conflict as Washington signalled it may resort to force if diplomacy fails to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Negotiations mediated by Oman concluded after two intense sessions, yet officials acknowledged there was no breakthrough on the core dispute over Iran uranium enrichment and future inspections.
Diplomats familiar with the process said the atmosphere was tense, with one source describing the talks as “serious but fragile,” reflecting widening gaps rather than narrowing compromise.
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, insisted “good progress” had been achieved, adding that further technical discussions were expected within days.
Despite that optimism, Western diplomats said there was “no clear evidence” that Iran and the United States had moved closer on fundamental positions shaping the Iran nuclear programme.
The talks unfolded against a backdrop of escalating military pressure, with the White House weighing what officials privately described as “credible options” should negotiations stall completely.
President Donald Trump has overseen a significant buildup of naval and air power in the region, fuelling the Trump military threat narrative.
Two US aircraft carrier strike groups, strategic bombers, and missile-equipped submarines have been positioned near Iran, a deployment some analysts called “unprecedented in scale.”
Iranian officials argued that such pressure undermines trust, accusing Washington of negotiating “with one hand while threatening war with the other.”
The indirect talks were held in Geneva, where delegations shuttled between rooms rather than meeting face-to-face, reflecting the depth of mutual hostility.
The US team was led by special envoy Steve Witkoff, whose mandate includes extracting permanent guarantees that Iran will never pursue a nuclear weapon.
Tehran has repeatedly denied any intention to build such weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are peaceful and tied to energy production and national sovereignty.
At the heart of the dispute lies Iran uranium enrichment, long viewed by Tehran as a sovereign right but seen by Washington as a pathway to rapid weaponisation.
Iran argues that limited enrichment under international supervision should be allowed, while the US demands far-reaching restrictions and long-term monitoring.
Complicating matters is Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium, some of it refined to levels close to weapons grade, according to international inspectors.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, led by Rafael Grossi, has warned that unresolved questions over stockpile locations remain a major concern.
Washington wants Iran’s enriched uranium either diluted domestically or removed entirely, options Tehran views as politically explosive concessions.
One Iranian negotiator said proposals demanding “zero enrichment forever” were “completely rejected,” describing them as incompatible with national dignity.
The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, added further strain by raising concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme.
Iran dismissed those demands as inconsistent, arguing that missiles fall outside the scope of nuclear negotiations and are essential for national defence.
Rubio countered that missile capabilities cannot be ignored indefinitely, warning they pose a growing threat to US interests and allies across the Middle East.
These disagreements unfolded as Trump faces rising domestic pressure, with critics accusing him of steering the country toward another costly conflict.
Democratic lawmakers have demanded congressional oversight, calling any unilateral strike a “war of choice” with unpredictable consequences.
An Associated Press poll suggested public scepticism, finding that a majority of Americans do not trust Trump’s judgment on overseas military force.
Analysts say the White House now confronts a narrowing window, as maintaining massive deployments strains resources and political patience.
Some advisers argue a limited strike could coerce Tehran back to the table, while others warn it could ignite a wider regional war.
The Middle East war risk is particularly acute given Iran’s network of allied militias across the region, capable of retaliating against US assets.
Iran has warned that any attack would trigger “proportionate responses,” a phrase widely interpreted as encompassing multiple theatres.
Omani mediators sought to calm tensions, insisting that “creative ideas” were still being exchanged and urging both sides to avoid irreversible steps.
They stressed that diplomacy, while slow, remains the only viable route to preventing further escalation and long-term instability.
European officials echoed that message, fearing that collapse of US-Iran nuclear talks could unravel decades of non-proliferation efforts.
Memories of the 2015 nuclear deal, which briefly eased sanctions and tensions, loom large, though trust has since eroded dramatically.
Trump has repeatedly criticised that agreement, calling it “weak,” while Iran says US withdrawal destroyed confidence in American commitments.
The current standoff reflects those unresolved grievances, now amplified by military posturing and domestic political calculations on both sides.
Observers note that miscalculation remains the greatest danger, with even minor incidents risking rapid escalation.
For now, both capitals insist diplomacy continues, yet preparations on the ground suggest contingency plans are well advanced.
As one Western diplomat put it, “Everyone says they want talks, but everyone is preparing for what comes after talks fail.”
The coming days may prove decisive, determining whether dialogue can still restrain confrontation or whether force will shape the next chapter.
With US-Iran nuclear talks suspended but not abandoned, the world watches anxiously, aware that the margin for error is shrinking fast.
Read more here: Trump Israel Iran strike politics drive White House preference for Israeli first strike
