The Geneva negotiations have concluded with optimistic remarks regarding the potential for an agreement; however, they are overshadowed by the visible threat of military action from the United States. Washington is reportedly using the option of a tactical strike as a negotiating chip to push for a swift nuclear deal, creating a critical test for the diplomatic boundaries between the parties. This setting places the discussions within a framework described as "negotiating under fire," where political talks are interlinked with military buildup, with the latter being employed to enhance the terms of the former and quicken their pace.

According to Dr. Mohjaub Zouiri, an academic and expert on Middle Eastern policies, the negotiation process appears to be largely dictated by Washington's clear demands, effectively creating a one-sided negotiation landscape. The U.S. expectations include lowering uranium enrichment levels, managing highly enriched uranium stocks, and governing the nuclear program's trajectory over the long term, without offering a parallel timeline for the lifting of sanctions. This imbalance in demands has contributed to the perception that the U.S. is not merely threatening military intervention as a last resort but is actively using it as a temporary pressure tactic in negotiations.

The implications of this approach could lead to significant shifts in U.S.-Iran relations, as Iran may feel pressured to concede to U.S. demands more rapidly than it would in a typical diplomatic situation. The evident lack of mutual agreement on the next steps—particularly regarding sanctions relief—complicates the negotiation landscape further, as the clock is ticking for both sides. The scenario underscores the complexities of balancing military threats with the need for diplomatic resolutions in international relations, particularly in the contentious arena of nuclear negotiations with Iran.