Iran–U.S. Talks: Tehran’s Reasons for Entering and Remaining in Negotiations
WANA (Feb 17) – Today, Tuesday, February 17, the second round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States is underway at the Omani Embassy in Geneva, Switzerland. Like previous rounds, these negotiations are being held indirectly with the mediation of Oman’s foreign minister.
The agenda for this round is strictly limited to the nuclear issue and the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran, and no other topics are being discussed within this diplomatic process.
On the Iranian side, Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi is leading the negotiations, accompanied by Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Esmail Baghaei, Kazem Gharibabadi, Hamid Ghanbari, and several economic and technical experts. The U.S. delegation includes Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s special envoy, and Jared Kushner, the U.S. president’s son-in-law.
Why did the Islamic Republic of Iran return to negotiations after the 12-day attacks by the United States and Israel on Iranian territory, escalating U.S. threats, and Europe’s move to activate the so-called snapback mechanism? Why has Tehran chosen to remain in the talks, and what factors could hinder its continued participation?
During the Iran–U.S. nuclear negotiations in June 2025, Washington effectively dealt a severe blow to diplomacy and derailed the talks by giving Israel the green light to attack Iran and subsequently supporting strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It then continued to intensify pressure through further anti-Iran measures.
Through efforts such as attempting to activate the snapback mechanism, fueling unrest and what Tehran describes as a quasi-coup last month (January 8–9), repeated military threats, and significant deployments of military equipment to the region, the United States sought either to change the Iranian system or force it into submission. The failure of these efforts ultimately led Washington to speak of returning to negotiations.
Why did Iran re-enter negotiations with the United States?
Iran reviewed a return to diplomacy within the framework of regional efforts to reduce tensions. The decision followed contacts and consultations by several regional countries with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who emphasized dialogue as the only viable path to managing disputes.
Iran’s entry into the diplomatic track has meant a sole focus on the nuclear issue. Tehran agreed to rejoin the process only after receiving assurances that the negotiations would be strictly limited to the nuclear file.
Through regional intermediaries, Iran outlined two conditions for new talks with the United States, both of which were accepted by Washington:
- Acceptance of the principle of uranium enrichment
- Limiting negotiations exclusively to nuclear matters
U.S. acceptance of these conditions is seen by Tehran as evidence that Washington failed to achieve its objectives through previous measures, effectively forcing it back to the negotiating table. The argument is that Iran was already participating in talks before the 12-day war, while the United States believed it could secure greater concessions through military action and unrest. Its return to negotiations, therefore, reflects the failure of those alternative strategies.
These red lines are so important to Iran that they have been repeatedly stated publicly by senior officials.
Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, recently told Oman’s national television: “If negotiations proceed within a reasonable framework, I believe they will succeed. But if other demands are raised that lead to failure — such as some of Mr. Trump’s remarks that Iran must not move toward weapons — then the path will become difficult.”
He added: “I believe the issue is solvable. If the Americans’ concern is that Iran should not move toward nuclear weapons, this can be resolved. But if issues beyond this enter the talks, the process may face difficulties.”
The Geneva Talks and Iran’s Deterrence Message in the Strait of Hormuz
WANA (Feb 17) – On the eve of a new round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States in Geneva, Tehran has activated two parallel tracks: diplomacy at the negotiating table and deterrence in the field. This simultaneity is neither accidental nor merely symbolic; it reflects Iran’s assessment of an environment in which […]
What does Iran want, and why is it staying in the negotiations?
Based on the principles outlined by Tehran, future discussions are expected to focus on uranium enrichment and its levels, as well as sanctions relief and Iran’s economic benefits.
According to Iranian negotiators, lifting sanctions is an integral part of any diplomatic process, and Iran expects that in return for confidence-building measures regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, unilateral U.S. sanctions will be lifted so that the Iranian people can benefit from their rights.
Iran’s participation is result-oriented, aimed at safeguarding its nuclear rights while securing the removal of sanctions.
Tehran continues to view negotiations as the primary tool for managing tensions and advancing national interests. The foreign minister has recently stressed that Iran prefers diplomacy and is ready for genuine negotiations with the United States, provided the other side demonstrates seriousness and delivers tangible outcomes. He added that Iran prefers diplomacy to war and that talks must continue without threats or pressure.
Araghchi’s emphasis on balanced and fair negotiations underscores that alongside Iran’s confidence-building steps to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and accept related commitments, sanctions must be lifted to ensure economic benefit.
Iran also maintains that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has the right to peaceful nuclear energy and enrichment, and this right must be respected in any agreement.
In an interview with RT, Araghchi said: “The level of enrichment depends on our domestic needs. We have reactors that require nuclear fuel and enriched uranium. Our principled position is that enriched material will not leave Iran; we can dilute it inside the country.”
He added: “We are fully prepared to reach a fair and balanced agreement and have no intention of buying time. We are ready to move quickly in negotiations and reach a deal.”
Iran’s participation is also aimed at achieving results in the shortest possible time and countering narratives that portray Iran as inflexible or unwilling to pursue diplomacy.
Tehran argues that it has demonstrated it is both a responsible and capable actor — responsible in seeking to preserve and enhance regional peace and security, and capable in participating seriously in any process by relying on its own capacities.
A woman walks past an anti-US billboard on a street in Tehran, Iran, February 17, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
What could lead to failure or Iran’s withdrawal from talks?
Iran has repeatedly shown that it will engage seriously in diplomatic processes while prioritizing its interests, and adherence to the defined agenda is a red line.
Iran’s nuclear negotiations have historically taken place in an environment of deep mistrust — not the product of a single event but the accumulation of past experiences. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the inability of remaining parties to offset its effects marked a turning point that fundamentally reshaped Iran’s view of political guarantees and commitments.
Failure to address Iran’s core demands or contradictory behavior could disrupt the process. If Iran’s key conditions — nuclear-only negotiations and recognition of enrichment rights — are not respected, talks could stall.
At a press conference in Tehran, Araghchi said: “The most important issue in past negotiations was the other side’s insistence on zero enrichment, which was never acceptable to us.”
Continued pressure, threats, and military deployments are also seen as inconsistent with the spirit of dialogue, and any miscalculated U.S. action could provoke a firm Iranian response and reinforce the perception that Washington lacks seriousness.
In an interview with RT, the foreign minister emphasized: “Just as we are prepared to defend ourselves against any new aggression, we are also ready for a diplomatic solution… Militarily, both quantitatively and qualitatively, we are more prepared than before the twelve-day war, and we are also more prepared for diplomacy.”
Iranian officials argue that the ball is now in the United States’ court to build trust through concrete steps demonstrating seriousness in diplomacy.
On Monday, Araghchi wrote on his official X account: “I have come to Geneva with real initiatives to reach a fair and balanced agreement. What is absolutely not on the agenda is surrender to threats.”
LATEST UPDATES ON IRAN-U.S. NUCLEAR TALKS / FEB 17
WANA – Our team is closely monitoring the latest developments regarding the new round of Iran–U.S. nuclear talks here. Swiss and Iranian Foreign Ministers Meet in Geneva WANA (Feb 17) – The foreign ministers of Switzerland and Iran met Tuesday afternoon in Geneva, as the city hosted a second round of indirect negotiations between […]
