US-Iran row: Diplomacy must win over brinkmanship

2026-02-19 - 00:13

THE failure of the first round of US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman (Feb 6), spurred global concerns regarding the Trump Administration’s obsession with attacking Iran and the harrowing consequences of such a military (mis-)adventure. Though the second round of talks started in Geneva (Feb 17), the situation is yet complex, with both sides having deep-seated concerns and mistrust. In case of talks’ failure, the US is prepared to attack Iran while Tehran has warned that it will strike US bases in the region. Giving diplomacy a fair chance to win over brinkmanship, dialogue and deterrence are crucial tools in this complex geopolitical landscape. For decades, Iran remains a pivotal focus of US foreign policy primarily because it acts as the most consistent and active challenger to the US-Israel’s regional influence and security architecture in the Middle East. Despite significant US-Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, Iran still continues to maintain its nuclear infrastructure and as per the western reports, it can shortly enrich enough uranium required for a nuclear device. From the US perspective, Iran matters significantly to US foreign policy because it is the only regional power consistently challenging American influence in the Middle East. Tehran’s defiance of US-led norms, support for proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and pursuit of nuclear capabilities undermine US strategic goals. Iran’s resistance to ‘US-Zionist domination’ strengthens its role as a counterbalance, challenging Washington’s efforts to shape regional order. Tehran is highly critical of US’ unconditional political and military support of Israel. Undeniably, a parallel scenario of diplomacy and conflict persists between Washington and Tehran, marked by recent resumption of talks in Muscat and Geneva (Feb 6, Feb 17) amid heightened tensions. On the other side, the Pentagon has already deployed an “armada” of 10 warships, including the USS Abraham Lincoln while the next fleet, the USS Gerald Ford, will be shortly sent to the Middle East to pressure Tehran into a new “fair and equitable” deal. However, a critical appraisal of the current global landscape suggests that any decision by a second-term President Trump to launch a military attack on Iran would significantly face greater challenges compared to previous US actions, primarily due to the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world order. Unlike in past decades, a US strike today would likely not occur in a strategic vacuum but would provoke swift counterbalancing from Russia and China, both of which have deepened their economic and political engagement in the Middle East. If the US attacks Iran, Russia and China are likely to provide diplomatic, economic and potentially military-technical support to Tehran, framing the conflict as Western imperialism. Whereas, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already highlighted that regime change in Iran is vastly more complex than previous campaigns, such as in Venezuela, due to the longevity and institutionalization of Iran’s clerical system. Needless to say, sane elements in US foreign policy continue to advocate diplomacy over brinkmanship with Iran, emphasizing de-escalation and dialogue amid growing regional tensions. Recent diplomatic efforts highlight a push to address concerns through negotiation rather than confrontation. Some analysts critically think that on the side-lines of the Munich Conference, the US-advocated and reflected intent regarding regime change in Iran is not a good omen. In a multipolar world, unilateral military action could be potentially provocative. Global powers like China and Russia may oppose such moves, weakening US leverage. Regional allies might resist entanglement, while international institutions could condemn the action, isolating the US diplomatically. Additionally, given the situation, especially if the attack fails to deliver public approval. And above all, the “rules-based international order” that once gave the US legitimacy is viewed as increasingly fragile, meaning a unilateral attack might face sharper condemnation from the “global majority”. Such an attack would likely be seen as a violation of international law and a trigger for widespread condemnation, rather than a coalition-backed action. While US foreign policy is already under severe global criticism because of its unbalanced and intervening approach in the Western hemisphere, a US-led military intervention in Iran may be “strategically high-risk” and could result in a long, costly and uncontrollable war that fails to deliver stable, long-term security. While on the domestic US scene, political division in the US reduces the strategic coherence and public support necessary for prolonged military operations, especially if they result in high personnel or economic costs. In addition, ongoing commitments in Europe and the Indo-Pacific significantly strain the US military’s ability to deploy and sustain forces for a new major conflict in West Asia. Moreover, critics argue that unilateral military action without a clear justification or congressional authorization weakens global support and further fractures the existing international order. Though talks’ success intrinsically hinges on mutual concessions, trust-building and addressing core concerns vis-à-vis inspections and sanctions relief, a breakthrough between Washington and Tehran could positively de-escalate chronic regional rivalries, thereby meaningfully preventing arms proliferation, making diplomatic progress not just temporality desirable but lastingly essential for long-term peace.The analysts believed Trump’s Administration maximalist approach has been the root cause of the failure of the US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman. To conclude, seen from a pragmatist perspective, the sustained US-Iran peace diplomacy is profoundly crucial for regional stability since the unresolved nuclear tensions exacerbate Middle East volatility. Amid Iran’s rejection of Washington’s callous demands and insistence on domestic enrichment rights, the renewed talks in Geneva pave the way forward. Moreover, successful diplomacy in US-Iran nuclear talks fundamentally aims to verifiably restrict Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful use while avoiding military conflict. Two key strategic implications are the long-term containment of Iran’s nuclear breakout capability and the reduction of regional tensions, which allows for broader, albeit complex, geopolitical rebalancing. —The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)