Iran’s foreign minister, Araghchi, said on Feb. 11 that an agreement with the United States over Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme is achievable provided it is “fair and balanced.” Speaking on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, he framed the prospect of a deal as contingent on credible security guarantees and respect for Iran’s sovereignty, rejecting any outcome that would be seen domestically as capitulation.
Araghchi’s comments came shortly after indirect talks between the United States and Iran in Oman on Feb. 6, and against a backdrop of high-level consultations in Washington. President Trump met Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a closed-door session on Feb. 11 and said on social media that reaching an agreement with Tehran would be the United States’ “preference,” while warning that the alternative would be to “watch and wait.”
The foreign minister emphasised that Iran prefers diplomacy but will not yield on matters it considers sovereign. He also used the Revolution anniversary rallies to underline domestic political limits: millions of Iranians, he said, demonstrated that their rights and dignity are not for sale, a reminder that any deal must be sellable to hardline constituencies in Tehran.
The exchange of signals — tentative diplomacy in Oman and public reaffirmations of red lines in Tehran and Washington — reflects a familiar pattern in US–Iran negotiations: talks advance in fits and starts while the risk of confrontation remains. Both sides have incentives to explore a deal that would restore limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, but each also faces domestic and allied constraints that complicate compromise.
For Washington, key questions include the scope of verifiable limits on enrichment, the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in inspections, and durable assurances that Iran will not resume illicit activity should political winds shift. For Israel, which has repeatedly signalled it will resist any agreement it judges insufficient to prevent a latent or overt bomb-making capability, security guarantees and robust inspection mechanisms will be essential.
If carefully negotiated, a deal could revive elements of the 2015 framework by tying phased sanctions relief to verifiable nuclear constraints, with additional provisions aimed at longer-term regional stability. Yet significant obstacles remain: domestic politics on both sides, Iran’s insistence on sovereignty, the trust deficit after years of sanctions and covert operations, and the political salience of the issue to Israel and to regional rivals.
A successful agreement would reduce the immediate risk of military confrontation in the Gulf, calm energy markets, and restore a degree of multilateral arms-control architecture in the Middle East. Conversely, failed talks or miscalculation could accelerate a regional crisis with unpredictable spillovers, making the next stages of diplomacy — the sequencing of concessions, verification language, and third-party guarantees — crucial.