Mideast stability uncertain as US, Iran restart talks
As Iran and the United States head for their next round of nuclear-related talks on Thursday in Geneva, Switzerland, experts noted that there are few signs of meaningful de-escalation in the military standoff between the two countries.
They said the risk of another armed conflict in the Middle East is rising sharply, with the US increasing its military presence in the region, withdrawing diplomatic personnel and escalating threats of possible strikes.
Iranian officials have signaled both openness to negotiation and readiness for confrontation.
On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a social media post that Iran is heading for the talks "with a determination to achieve a fair and equitable deal — in the shortest possible time".
On Monday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei warned that any US attack, regardless of its scope and scale, will be considered an act of aggression and met with consequences. He emphasized that Iran's armed forces remain "vigilantly ready round the clock" even as diplomatic efforts continue.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has described recent negotiations between Iran and the US as having "yielded encouraging signals", but cautioned that Iran has "made all necessary preparations for any potential scenario".
As negotiations progress, the US appears to be increasingly prepared for a potential conflict with Iran. US President Donald Trump said on Monday that Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will lead a strike on Iran if he is ordered to do so. Trump, however, added that he would rather reach a deal with Iran.
Ding Long, a professor at the Shanghai International Studies University's Middle East Studies Institute, said the US' current strategy on Iran involves using sustained pressure to compel negotiation, with the ultimate aim of dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"In recent weeks, Washington has stepped up military deterrence in the hope of achieving its objectives without resorting to war. Nevertheless, the use of force remains an option. How the situation develops will largely depend on whether Iran is prepared to make substantial concessions," Ding said.
While the US has put forward three topics of conversation with Iran, the latter has agreed to negotiate only on nuclear-related issues, effectively narrowing the scope of the talks.
Iran has reportedly signaled concessions, including seriously considering a combination of sending half of its most highly enriched uranium abroad, diluting the rest, and participating in the building of a regional enrichment consortium.
Ding said that it remains to be seen whether these moves will meet the US' expectations. "Washington appears to view Tehran's current internal and external challenges as a potential window of opportunity to advance its strategic objectives and is unlikely to ease pressure, whether through negotiations or military deterrence," he added.
Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, said in a recent analysis report that the US' rapid military buildup across the Gulf has revived familiar anxieties in Iran, yet Tehran's assessment of Washington's intentions appears more nuanced and calibrated than at any time in recent years.
He said Iran believes that "the US is preparing for a short, high-impact military campaign that would cripple Iran's missile infrastructure, undermine its deterrent, and reset the balance of power" in the aftermath of last year's 12-day Iran-Israel conflict.
Faced with heavy domestic strains, Iranian senior officials frame the confrontation as "existential", Vatanka said in the report.
"This is why Iran's emerging doctrine seems to accept far greater risk. It cannot deter a strike, but it can raise the price of any continued conflict to a level that forces the United States to think harder before escalating," he added.
Ding, from the Shanghai International Studies University, said that if the US were to launch a military strike against Iran, the latter would almost certainly respond, and such retaliation would endanger US and Israeli assets in the region, as well as critical maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.
"The potential for broader escalation is precisely what concerns policymakers in Washington and has contributed to heated internal debates within the US government," he said.
Sun Degang, director of Fudan University's Center for Middle Eastern Studies in Shanghai, said that Iran is unlikely to make major concessions on abandoning its nuclear program, which reduces the prospects of substantive progress in Iran-US negotiations and, in turn, heightens the risk of military confrontation.
Should the US carry out a strike against Iran, it would likely be a short-duration, high-intensity operation, Sun said, but emphasized that a potential retaliation by Iran, which is a major regional power, could quickly broaden the scope of the confrontation and lead to wider instability.
"If the US were to launch military action against Iran, the Middle East might be pushed into a wider conflict with far-reaching consequences felt well beyond the region," he added.
Xinhua contributed to this story.
