Unless one believes President Donald Trump is engaged in an elaborate ruse with the Islamic Republic before ordering a large-scale military strike, it is clear that his objectives have narrowed from an attack capable of dislodging the regime to one that only secures a nuclear deal.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington and met with Trump on February 11, 2026, reportedly to persuade him that he should incorporate Iran’s ballistic missile program into negotiations because it poses a direct and serious threat. After the meeting, however, Trump said they had reached no “definitive” agreement on how to proceed. He added negotiations with Tehran should continue to determine whether a deal is possible.
“I must state unequivocally that Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities will never be subject to any negotiations.”
Before the February 6, 2026, talks, Tehran said it would discuss only its nuclear program. Trump has premised his post-2018 Iran policy on a framework that would curb not only Iran’s nuclear activities but also its ballistic missile program and its regional strategy of sustaining armed groups from Iraq to Yemen and Lebanon.
Meeting Turkey’s foreign minister in late January, Iran’s chief diplomat Abbas Araghchi said, “I must state unequivocally that Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities will never be subject to any negotiations. No country is prepared to compromise with others over its own security and defense.” He added that the security of the Iranian people “is in no way anyone else’s concern,” and that Iran would expand its defensive capabilities to whatever extent it deems necessary.
Despite these red lines, Trump launched new talks. For a brief period, Turkey appeared poised to host a meeting involving the United States, Iran, and several regional actors. Tehran rejected that framework and agreed only to indirect negotiations in Oman.
A fourth element altered the landscape when Iran’s rulers moved to crush popular protests on January 8 and 9, killing an estimated 35,000 civilians. During the unrest, Trump dispatched a substantial air and naval buildup to the region and encouraged Iranians to continue protesting and seize government institutions. Yet once negotiations resurfaced—disappointing millions of Iranians—the question of accountability for the massacre faded from Washington’s rhetoric. Now, it appears that the White House may agree to sideline the missile issue, as senior officials, including Vice President JD Vance, focus almost exclusively on the nuclear file.
Some observers point to possible Qatari and other Arab diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Trump from initiating military action.
What leverage does a bankrupt, internally besieged, and weakened Islamic Republic possess to confine negotiations to the nuclear issue and influence both the venue and format of talks? Some observers point to possible Qatari and other Arab diplomatic efforts aimed at dissuading Trump from initiating military action. Trump’s chief envoy Steve Witkoff maintains close business ties with Doha. In an interview with Russia Today on February 11, Araghchi described his impression of Witkoff and Jared Kushner during discussions in Oman: “I believe they are trying to avoid war and to find a diplomatic solution, and that is the wisest decision that President Trump can make. We’ve been told that their intention is to find a peaceful resolution. If they are serious, we are serious too—although we are still not completely certain.”
Inside Iran, execution of protesters continued, despite promises to the United States that it would halt executions in order to prevent a U.S. attack. Now, hardliners threaten and ridicule Trump, while more established government-controlled newspapers have adopted a somewhat more measured tone. Nevertheless, numerous anti-Trump effigies appeared during state-organized events marking the anniversary of the Islamic Republic on February 11 in Tehran.
The central quandary surrounding Trump’s nuclear-centered diplomacy is this: If the objective is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Tehran is simultaneously threatening a regional conflagration with its ballistic missile arsenal. That threat is a reason oil-rich Arab states seek to avert a U.S. military strike, fearing retaliatory missile attacks on their energy infrastructure. The result, however, is preservation of a problem: Iran’s missile capabilities and its network of armed proxies will continue to pose a challenge to the United States and its allies, regardless of the outcome of nuclear negotiations.
