Iran’s state broadcasting corporation announced Thursday evening that the American delegation had left the negotiating table in Geneva, in what appears to mark the end of the current round of talks.
Oman is mediating between the sides, and its foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi, said Thursday: “We concluded the day after making significant progress in the negotiations between the United States and Iran. We will resume the talks soon after consultations. Technical-level discussions will take place next week in Vienna. I am grateful to all those involved for their efforts — the participants, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Switzerland.” Iran and the United States have not yet issued statements on the end of the talks.
1 View gallery
The American representatives in the negotiations, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi
(Photo: Omani Foreign Ministry)
Earlier, Israeli officials assessed — particularly following Iran’s response to U.S. demands in the negotiations — that there is a high likelihood of an American strike in the near future. The New York Times reported Thursday that targeted strikes under consideration by President Donald Trump’s administration would likely focus on Iran’s nuclear and missile sites.
U.S. officials said they doubt Iran is prepared to agree to a deal on its nuclear program, but that the strategy behind targeted strikes would be to compel its leaders to make concessions. In the immediate term, the goal would be to damage its nuclear and missile facilities.
President Trump declared that Iran’s three most important nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — were “completely destroyed” in strikes during Operation Midnight Hammer, carried out during the 12-Day War. However, according to officials who reviewed the intelligence, the sites were not completely destroyed, though they are not currently operational.
For Israel, the most critical immediate threat is Iran’s missiles. Destroying them would limit Tehran’s ability to retaliate against Israel and against military bases in the region where U.S. troops are stationed. U.S. military officials say that while American bombers and Tomahawk missiles can inflict significant damage on Iran’s missile array, Iran can produce additional missiles. In addition, Iran has dispersed some of its launch sites, making them harder to target.
According to The New York Times, any damage from a U.S. strike on Iran would likely serve two symbolic purposes. Several senior U.S. administration officials said it would allow Trump to claim a military victory against a longtime adversary. Other officials also hope it would push Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, although some current and former officials doubt that goal would be achieved.
Discussions within the Trump administration have centered on two plans: one, a broad attack targeting numerous sites over an extended period and even attempting to topple Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the other, a limited, targeted strike against missile and nuclear sites aimed, alongside damaging missile stockpiles and production, at forcing Iran back to negotiations. Trump appears to favor the more limited option.
U.S. officials said that if Iran does not accept the demands following a targeted strike, Trump would later consider a broader attack. However, two military officials said that despite reinforcements in the region, the Pentagon does not have the forces or munitions required for a prolonged air campaign. According to them, U.S. forces deployed in the region could sustain strikes for only about seven to 10 days.
A senior U.S. official told Al Jazeera on Thursday: “The military plans presented to Trump range from a limited strike to regime change. The military plans take into account the implications of a possible collapse of the regime in Iran, and consider the protection of our forces and interests, as well as the protection of our allies and partners. We expect Iran to fight on multiple fronts if it is attacked militarily. The objective of a possible military operation against Iran is to ensure it does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”
“Iran will not give up the principle of uranium enrichment,” Ebrahim Azizi, head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the Iranian Parliament, said Thursday after the renewal of indirect talks mediated by Oman. “All of Iran’s red lines were taken into account in the proposal presented by the Iranian delegation in Geneva. The proposal includes issues related to sanctions relief, investment and economic opportunities in Iran. If the United States acts rationally and seriously, the Iranian proposal paves the way for a comprehensive agreement.”