A mural in Tehran threatens the US with massive counterattacks in the event of an attack.Image: keystone
analysis
The talks between the US and Iran in Geneva are seen as the last chance to prevent a military confrontation. The question is what goals Donald Trump is pursuing.
February 26, 2026, 6:08 p.mFebruary 26, 2026, 6:08 p.m
They talk to each other again, albeit indirectly. The American and Iranian delegations met on Thursday at the representation of Oman in Geneva. The Sultanate plays the role of mediator as both sides avoid direct contact. There is a lot at stake: The USA is threatening military action against Iran.
US President Donald Trump deployed a force with massive firepower, including two aircraft carriers and numerous fighter jets. However, she cannot stay in the region forever. Trump needs a negotiation success or he has to strike. Many people are asking themselves the question: What does the president really want from the Iranians?
Video: Watson/Lucas Zollinger
Despite its explosive nature, he only touched on the topic briefly in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. “I prefer to solve this problem through diplomacy,” Trump said, while emphasizing that he would “never allow” the Islamic Republic to have a nuclear weapon. He has not yet heard a corresponding confession.
Nuclear facilities “wiped out”?
However, the leadership in Tehran has regularly emphasized that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. Doubts are justified. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A bomb would require 90 percent, which experts say could be easily achieved.
How close Iran is to the bomb is controversial. Last summer, Donald Trump bombed nuclear facilities during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. He claimed they had been “wiped out”. This is not true, but they are “no longer usable”writes the New York Times, citing US government members.
Fight for survival
There is said to be a tug of war in the Iranian leadership between hardliners who want the bomb even more after the brutal suppression of the protests in January, and the pragmatists who are prepared to give up, at least for the time being, in order to ensure the continued existence of the mullahs’ regime. The position of revolutionary leader Ali Khamenei is unclear.
It’s also about his survival, in the truest sense of the word. Donald Trump’s options range from attacks on the nuclear program to shelling of Revolutionary Guard facilities and missile sites to regime change. More and more people are convinced that this is only possible through US intervention.
Only 27 percent for attack
Last summer, after the Israeli and American attacks, there was a kind of solidarity between the people and the regime, a diplomat with experience of Iran recently said in an interview. This changed after the massacres in January with thousands of deaths. Now many see Trump as the last hope.
The only question is what Trump wants. The President knows it probably not yourselfwrites the “Economist”. The confusion in politics and among the American population is correspondingly great. According to an “Economist” survey, only 27 percent would support renewed US military deployment in this region.
Two stage plan
“Never before has America deployed so much firepower with so little idea of how to use it,” writes the British magazine. According to the New York Times, Trump is planning an attack in two stages: In a first step there are targeted and limited blows. If this doesn’t work, it could lead to a larger and protracted war.
Chief of Staff Dan Caine (r.) is said to have warned Trump against escalation.Image: keystone
Chief of Staff Dan Caine is said to have warned against this second stage. Trump described corresponding media reports as “fake news”. He appointed Caine himself after sending his predecessor, appointed by Joe Biden, into the desert. But the concerns of the top US military are apparently not unfounded.
Seven to ten days
Despite the deployment of troops, the Pentagon has neither the necessary forces nor the ammunition for an extensive bombing campaign, writes the New York Times, citing two US military representatives. Accordingly, the attacks could last a maximum of seven to ten days. And there is a risk of widespread counterattacks.
They could come directly from Iran or from its allies in the region, i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah or Houthis. They were greatly weakened by the war with Israel, but not defeated. “If we strike, Iran could fire 100 missiles at US bases,” Paul Eaton, a retired general and Iraq veteran, told the New York Times.
Fascinated by the military
This corresponds to the attacks on Israel last June, but the US has neither an Iron Dome air defense system nor the Israeli bunker network, said Eaton. Dan Caine is also said to have warned in the White House of a potentially high risk of American losses and negative effects on the stockpile of war materials.
The presumably necessary approval by Congress, which Democratic politicians are demanding, plays almost a secondary role. The president shouldn’t care about her anyway. After the rapid successes against Iran last summer and Venezuela in January, Trump seems to be fond of military means, says the Economist.
No easy options
At the same time, he is frustrated that there are no easy options in the current dispute with Iran. A lot will depend on what the Iranian negotiators in Geneva are offering. But doing nothing would be a loss of face for Trump in view of the enormous troop build-up, and he will never allow that.
Perhaps he would claim success after a few symbolic airstrikes, but the risk of an escalation with serious consequences is real. Presidents have been trying to change Iran’s behavior for almost half a century, the Economist emphasizes: “No one has figured out how to do this.”