By Yang Zi
With tensions in the Middle East continuing, the United States and Iran are set to hold negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland on Feb. 17, 2026. This highly consequential discussion, which concerns regional peace and stability, has once again become a focal point of international attention. On the eve of the talks, Iran released signals of significant concessions, but the parties remain far apart on key issues, casting uncertainty over the outcome.
Iran signals willingness to dilute 60 percent enriched uranium
According to a Feb. 15 report by the UK broadcaster BBC, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi said in an exclusive interview in Tehran that if the U.S. shows flexibility on sanctions, Iran is prepared to make substantial concessions in its nuclear program. This signals a rare Iranian willingness to compromise, giving cautious optimism for the Geneva talks.
Takht-Ravanchi specifically mentioned that Iran is prepared to dilute its current stock of 60 percent enriched uranium as a tangible demonstration of its sincerity. This proposal is highly significant, as 60 percent enrichment is already near the 90 percent weapons-grade threshold, a red line of international concern. Iran currently possesses over 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, leading global experts to worry that Tehran could be moving toward nuclear weapons development, although Iranian authorities repeatedly deny such intentions.
The Deputy Foreign Minister emphasized that Iran’s concessions depend on the U.S. demonstrating sincerity in negotiations. He said: “The ball is now in the United States’ court. They must show that they genuinely want to reach an agreement. If they are sincere, I believe we are on the path to an agreement.” However, Takht-Ravanchi did not clarify whether Iran expects the U.S. to ease sanctions or provide other concessions, leaving this key detail ambiguous and a potential sticking point in negotiations.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
US response: agreement ‘possible but very difficult’
Faced with Iran’s signals, the U.S. response has been mixed. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio said on Feb. 14 that President Donald Trump is open to an agreement, but that it would be “very difficult” to achieve consensus with Iran.
U.S. officials repeatedly stress that obstacles to progress in this prolonged negotiation have been largely due to Iran rather than the United States. Notably, Trump has shown a relatively positive stance ahead of the talks. He described preliminary indirect discussions in Oman last month as having “positive meaning,” echoing Iran’s assessment that the upcoming talks are “moving in a generally positive direction.”
At the same time, the Trump administration continues to apply military pressure on Iran. U.S. forces remain deployed in the Middle East, and Trump has threatened military action if Iran does not reach an agreement to curb its nuclear program. This “pressure strategy” is designed to encourage Iran to make greater concessions at the negotiating table.
‘Enrichment’ becomes a major sticking point
On technical matters, uranium enrichment remains the toughest challenge between the two sides. Trump recently told reporters, “We do not want any enrichment,” indicating that the U.S. wants to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities.
In contrast, Takht-Ravanchi firmly countered in his BBC interview: “Enrichment is no longer an issue. Iran insists it is off the table.” He stressed that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), peaceful use of nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, is an inalienable right, making this a non-negotiable red line.
This fundamental disagreement risks stalling negotiations. If the U.S. insists that enrichment must be restricted, the talks could enter a deadlock. On the other hand, if Washington accepts some level of Iranian enrichment, it may face intense domestic pressure from hawkish allies.
Missile program also remains off-limits
In addition to enrichment, the scope of the talks is another point of contention. The U.S. has long insisted that any agreement must cover Iran’s missile program, but Iran firmly rejects including missiles in the negotiations.
Takht-Ravanchi reiterated that Iran will never discuss its missile program with the U.S. Missiles are Iran’s self-defense capability and cannot be taken away. He said: “When Iran is attacked by a foreign power, it is our missiles that defend us, and this is an inalienable self-defense right.”
Iran’s main position is that negotiations must focus on specific nuclear issues. Takht-Ravanchi said: “Our principle is that they must reach conclusions on these issues first if they want an agreement.” Securing this would represent a major Iranian concession, as Iran views Washington’s push to discuss broader issues as the main obstacle to talks.
Historical context
This round of talks is inevitably compared to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). At that time, Iran transferred large amounts of enriched uranium to Russia, which provided technical solutions for handling about 11,000 kilograms of uranium.
When asked whether Iran would again dilute enriched uranium as in 2015, Takht-Ravanchi said: “It is too early to say what will happen during the negotiations,” indicating that Iran is maintaining a cautious stance on more sensitive issues. Other options, such as a temporary halt to enrichment, have been reported but not confirmed by Iranian officials.
Domestic pressures in Iran
Iran’s return to the negotiating table is influenced by domestic pressures. Military pressure and internal unrest are key factors. Last month, Iran’s regime violently suppressed domestic demonstrations, which critics say further harmed Iran’s international image.
Strict economic sanctions continue to severely impact Iran’s economy, causing currency devaluation, inflation, and rising youth unemployment, fueling public dissatisfaction. For Iran’s leadership, negotiating concessions in exchange for sanctions relief is both an economic necessity and a way to maintain political stability.
As the Feb. 17 Geneva talks approach, both sides face difficult strategic choices. Iran’s proposal to dilute highly enriched uranium is a significant gesture, but whether it will satisfy U.S. demands, and whether Washington will make substantial concessions on sanctions, remains to be seen.
At present, major issues such as enrichment, sanctions, handling of enriched uranium, and the scope of negotiations continue to present significant challenges. For the international community, whether Iran and the U.S. can reach an agreement will affect not only peace and stability in the Middle East but also the credibility of the global non-proliferation regime. Failure could trigger a more serious crisis or military conflict, while success could provide a model for resolving regional tensions peacefully.
