The wounds of that aggression are still alive in our minds.
In Geneva, American and Iranian diplomats met for the third time in recent months, searching for common ground on uranium enrichment while the USS Gerald R. Ford moved steadily toward the Middle East. The encounter captures one of history's oldest tensions: the simultaneous pursuit of peace and preparation for war, where the language of diplomacy and the grammar of force compete for authority. What unfolds in those hotel corridors may determine whether a fragile channel holds or collapses into the kind of conflict both sides claim to want to avoid.
- Iran refuses to surrender its uranium enrichment program, calling it a sovereign right, even as US envoy Steve Witkoff arrives in Geneva demanding exactly that.
- The world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is being repositioned toward the Middle East in real time — a floating ultimatum shadowing every diplomatic sentence.
- Oman's foreign minister shuttles between hotel rooms carrying proposals neither side will deliver face-to-face, a structure that reveals how little trust remains after last June's Israeli strikes and US bombing runs.
- At home, roughly half of Americans see Iran's nuclear program as a direct threat, yet only one in four trusts Trump's military judgment — a public deeply worried but deeply skeptical of the path being taken.
- Iran has warned that any military strike would make every US base in the Middle East a target and draw Israel into the fire, raising the cost of failure to a regional scale.
In Geneva on Thursday, American and Iranian negotiators met for the third time in recent months, separated not just by ideology but by the memory of recent violence. Steve Witkoff, a Trump confidant with no diplomatic background, sat across from Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — or rather, near him, since the two sides moved between hotel rooms under Omani mediation rather than meeting directly. The structure itself told the story: this was diplomacy conducted through walls.
The military backdrop was impossible to ignore. As talks began, the USS Gerald R. Ford — the world's largest aircraft carrier — was being repositioned toward the Middle East, accompanied by additional warships and aircraft. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had already told reporters that Iran was pursuing intercontinental ballistic missiles and rebuilding its nuclear capacity. The message was clear: negotiate, but understand the alternative.
Iran's position had not moved. Araghchi said before departing for Geneva that his country would not give up enrichment, framing it as a peaceful right, and offered only permanent civilian assurances in exchange for full sanctions relief. President Pezeshkian added that Iran's supreme religious leader had forbidden nuclear weapons — a statement that landed with little force in Washington, where Senator Lindsey Graham was publicly calling for regime change.
Oman's Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi carried proposals between the delegations and met with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, whose agency would oversee any eventual agreement. When asked about his hopes as he left a Geneva hotel, al-Busaidi offered a thumbs up before disappearing into a police escort — a gesture too small to mean much, yet too deliberate to dismiss entirely.
A new AP-NORC poll captured the American mood: about half of adults saw Iran's nuclear program as a genuine threat, but only around a quarter trusted Trump's judgment on military force. The negotiations were happening in the shadow of the last round, which ended with Israeli strikes and US bombing runs on Iranian nuclear sites. Iran had since made clear that another attack would bring retaliation against US bases across the region and against Israel. The diplomatic channel remained open — but the question was whether it could hold against the weight of everything pressing down on it.
In Geneva on Thursday, American and Iranian negotiators sat down for the third time in as many months, separated by intermediaries and the weight of recent violence. Steve Witkoff, a billionaire real estate developer and confidant of President Trump, was there to persuade Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to stop enriching uranium and halt its long-range missile program. The talks were happening under Omani mediation, with diplomats moving between hotel rooms rather than sitting across from each other directly—a structure born of deep mistrust.
The timing was deliberate and pointed. As the negotiators convened, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world's largest aircraft carrier, was being towed away from a Greek naval base toward the Middle East. Behind it came additional warships and aircraft, a visible show of force that undercut the diplomatic language. The message was unmistakable: talk, but know that we are prepared to act. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had made this explicit hours before the talks began, telling reporters that Iran was "trying to achieve intercontinental ballistic missiles" and attempting to rebuild its nuclear capacity.
Iran's position had not shifted. Foreign Minister Araghchi told an Indian news outlet before departing for Geneva that his country would not surrender its right to enrich uranium, which he insisted was for peaceful purposes only. He offered a trade: Iran would provide permanent assurances that its program was civilian in nature, but only if the United States lifted all sanctions. The wounds from last June were still raw—when Israel had attacked during the previous round of negotiations, and the U.S. had struck three Iranian nuclear sites. "This time, we are obviously more careful," Araghchi said. He also dismissed reports that Iran was developing missiles capable of reaching American territory as "fake news," claiming the country had capped its missile range at 2,000 kilometers for defensive purposes.
President Masoud Pezeshkian added his own assurance on state television, saying that Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons because the country's supreme religious leader had declared it would not. "The religious leader of a society can't lie," he said. But such statements carried little weight in Washington. Senator Lindsey Graham, a hardline voice on Iran policy, posted on social media that he opposed any deal allowing even minimal uranium enrichment. He called for regime change, describing Iran's government as "the largest state sponsor of terrorism."
Oman's Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi moved between the two sides, carrying proposals and counterproposals. He met with the IAEA director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, whose agency would be responsible for inspecting any agreement. When a journalist shouted a question about his hopes for the talks as he left a Geneva hotel, al-Busaidi flashed a thumbs up before speeding away in a police-escorted sedan. It was a small gesture, perhaps meaningless, perhaps a signal that something might yet be salvaged.
Back home, American public opinion was divided in a way that reflected the stakes. A new AP-NORC poll found that roughly half of U.S. adults viewed Iran's nuclear program as a direct threat. But only about one-quarter said they had high trust in Trump's judgment on military force or relations with adversaries. The survey had been conducted as military tensions spiked, capturing a moment when Americans were worried about Iran but skeptical of the administration's approach to the problem.
Iran had made clear what would happen if negotiations failed. Officials said that any American military attack would make all U.S. military bases in the Middle East legitimate targets, and that Israel would also face retaliation. The previous round of talks had ended with Israeli strikes and American bombing runs. This round was happening in the shadow of that escalation, with both sides claiming to want a deal while preparing for the possibility that one would not materialize. The question now was whether the diplomatic channel could hold, or whether the military buildup would eventually speak louder than the words being exchanged in Geneva's hotel rooms.
Citações Notáveis
This time, we are obviously more careful.— Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, on approaching negotiations after last year's attacks
The religious leader of a society can't lie. When he announces that we won't have nuclear weapons, it means we won't.— Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, on state television
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Trump send a massive carrier strike group to the region while his envoy is sitting down to negotiate? Doesn't that undermine the talks?
It's meant to do both things at once. The military presence is supposed to convince Iran that the U.S. is serious—that enriching uranium will have consequences. But it also signals to Iran that if they don't negotiate, there's a credible threat waiting. It's pressure and diplomacy working in tandem, though it's easy to see how Iran reads it as bad faith.
Iran says it won't give up uranium enrichment no matter what. So what's actually on the table?
The real negotiation is about the degree and pace of enrichment, and what inspections would look like. Iran wants sanctions lifted in exchange for transparency. The U.S. wants Iran to stop moving toward weapons-grade material. But Iran's red line is that it won't abandon the capability entirely, and that's where things get stuck.
What's Oman's role here? Why are they the mediators?
Oman has relationships with both sides and doesn't have the baggage that the U.S. or Europe carries. They're trusted enough that both Iran and America will talk to them. Without a neutral intermediary, these talks wouldn't happen at all.
The poll shows Americans don't trust Trump on military judgment. Does that matter to what happens next?
It matters politically. If negotiations collapse and Trump orders strikes, he'll face domestic skepticism. But it doesn't change the military calculus. Iran is still watching the carrier, and the U.S. is still prepared to use it. Public doubt doesn't stop wars.
What happens if these talks fail?
Then you're back to the cycle from last year—escalation, strikes, retaliation, and the region destabilizes further. Iran has already said U.S. bases and Israel are targets if attacked. It's the kind of spiral that's hard to stop once it starts.