The article raises pressing questions regarding the United States' motivations during the ongoing indirect nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman. There is widespread speculation that Washington might be using the negotiation process as a political and temporal guise to prepare for a military strike against Iran, reminiscent of events from last June. Alternatively, some analysts believe that the military buildup could be a negotiation tactic to leverage swift concessions from Tehran in the context of the nuclear deal discussions.

Recent statements from American officials indicate a departure from pure diplomacy, highlighting the concept of 'diplomacy with military options on the table.' President Donald Trump, addressing Congress, underscored his preference for a diplomatic solution but did not rule out military action, framing the discussions as part of ongoing negotiations aimed at thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Similarly, Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized that while diplomacy is preferred, the administration possesses 'other tools' to be employed if necessary, suggesting a readiness to escalate the situation if talks stagnate.

Such rhetoric raises alarms in Tehran, which views it as undermining the political guarantees typically associated with negotiations. Iran perceives the situation as one of 'pressure negotiations,' where the prospect of military action looms over dialogue, potentially leading to a more volatile regional landscape. This context complicates the negotiations further and reflects the intricate balance the U.S. is trying to maintain between diplomacy and military readiness in addressing Iran's nuclear program.