In the shadow of mounting military pressure and fragile diplomacy, the United States and Iran are navigating a precarious path toward a potential nuclear agreement. As of February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump has issued stark warnings to Tehran, insisting that Iran must reach a deal within the next month or face what he called “very traumatic” consequences. His remarks deliberately evoke the precedent of last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer, which severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities and, according to Washington, set back Tehran’s nuclear program. Speaking at the White House, Trump framed the moment as a stark choice, “We have to make a deal, otherwise it’s going to be very traumatic,” reminding Iranian leaders of the fate of previously targeted sites. The message is clear, diplomacy remains possible, but the alternative is coercive escalation.
These warnings come eight months after the end of the 12-Day War, amid ongoing indirect negotiations in Oman since February 6, 2026. Both sides have cautiously described the initial exchanges as constructive while remaining deeply divided over core issues, particularly uranium enrichment and ballistic missile capabilities. The US narrative presents the talks as a final opportunity for Iran to abandon not only any pathway to nuclear weapons but also what Washington describes as destabilizing regional behavior. Building on his first-term withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump has revived his maximum pressure strategy combining sweeping sanctions with overt military signaling designed to deny Tehran strategic leverage.
The White House has underscored this posture by highlighting Trump’s authorization of Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, which it claims “obliterated” key nuclear infrastructure and significantly delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. US officials now insist that any renewed agreement must extend beyond nuclear constraints to include limits on ballistic missile development and the curbing of support for proxy groups across the region. Trump has described such comprehensive demands as self-evident, arguing that it would be a “no-brainer” for a deal to address these broader security concerns.
This diplomatic push is reinforced by a substantial military build-up in the Middle East. In late January, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group was deployed alongside additional air and missile defense systems, with preparations reportedly underway for a second carrier group to join the regional formation. Pentagon sources characterize these measures as both deterrent and precautionary, signaling readiness to conduct strikes should diplomacy collapse. Trump has further hinted at escalation, telling Israeli media that in the absence meaningful Iranian concessions, the United States would “have to do something very tough.” The implicit linkage between negotiation and force has become a defining feature of Washington’s approach.
Tehran, for its part, portrays the United States as the aggressor, accusing Washington of weaponizing economic sanctions and military threats to extract concessions that infringe upon Iran’s sovereign rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Masoud Pezeshkian has reiterated that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons and is prepared to accept rigorous verification measures. However, he has categorically ruled out negotiations over ballistic missiles or regional influence, defining them as non-negotiable red lines tied to national defense and strategic depth. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has similarly rejected US demands on the missile program, warning that Iran would target US bases in the region if attacked.
Domestic unrest adds another layer of complexity. Pezeshkian has attributed recent protests to foreign provocation, asserting that economic grievances are being exploited by the United States, Israel and European actors to destabilize the country. While urging officials to distinguish between peaceful dissent and violence, he has characterized the latter as externally orchestrated acts reminiscent of extremist tactics rather than expressions of genuine socioeconomic frustration. This narrative reinforces Tehran’s claim that US military pressure undermines rather than facilitates negotiations.
A pivotal development occurred during the February 11 meeting in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump. Alarmed by reports that Iran could replenish its missile arsenal to between 1,800 and 2,000 units within weeks, Netanyahu reportedly pressed for the expansion of talks to include strict ballistic limitations and urged consideration of strikes against missile production facilities if diplomacy stalls. Trump described the meeting as productive yet inconclusive, reaffirming his preference for negotiations while warning that failure would trigger difficult decisions. Although he expressed optimism that Iran “wants a deal,” Israeli officials remain wary that a narrowly defined nuclear accord would leave Israel exposed to growing missile capabilities and proxy threats. Their discussion also touched on Gaza reconstruction and Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” illustrating the broader regional stakes intertwined with the nuclear file.
Regional actors have increasingly positioned themselves as mediators, emphasizing de-escalation to prevent the eruption of a potential conflict. Oman, hosting indirect talks, has leveraged its longstanding neutral diplomacy to facilitate communication between Washington and Tehran, relocating discussions to Muscat to enhance trust and discretion. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE have publicly supported diplomatic efforts, with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan emphasizing the urgency of a negotiated solution to contain regional crises. Alongside Egypt, Türkiye and Pakistan, the Gulf states have floated proposals ranging from non-aggression pacts and temporary enrichment freezes to constraints on arms transfers to proxy groups. These initiatives reflect a recognition that nuclear, missile and militia issues are interlinked and must be addressed holistically. Notably, Gulf attitudes have evolved. Once cautious regarding Omani mediation, regional powers now view it as indispensable, particularly after Iran’s 2025 strike on Qatar’s Al-Udeid base underscored the risks of spillover. As negotiations proceed, the region stands at a delicate juncture between confrontation and compromise. The United States relies on calibrated military pressure to strengthen its bargaining position, while Iran seeks to defend core strategic assets without provoking direct conflict. Regional mediation offers a narrow diplomatic corridor, yet mistrust remains profound.
A collapse of the talks could trigger a rapid escalation, with a particularly high-risk situation emerging after the expiration of Trump’s one-month deadline on March 13. Yet even a successful agreement may leave unresolved tensions over Iran’s missile program and its regional influence. With Trump’s deadline fast approaching, the margin for miscalculation is dangerously narrow, and the consequences of failure could extend far beyond the nuclear file.
