Iran and the United States are talking to each other and, according to key players, negotiations are underway. This fact, which, a month ago, seemed very difficult to happen, is now developing.

This process, which was left unfinished in June 2025, due to the “Twelve Day War”, is in operation.

In this regard, there are many unknowns and many anxieties around the plot, especially because two of the main parties involved say that they do not know for sure how the negotiation process will end; but, clearly, on the surface you can see that something is being tried to be established, the final results of which are not yet built.

Contributing to the non-linear assessment and demonstrating solvency in terms of information and thorough analysis, four of our experts give their opinion on the issue.

André Soares:

The talks between Washington and Tehran in early February 2026 are not genuine diplomacy but imperial coercion. After years of sanctions and military pressure, the US seeks to force Iran to legitimize its own economic siege. “Negotiation” here means submission: limited sovereignty in exchange for conditional, reversible relief.

The nuclear issue is merely a pretext for strategic control. What is really at stake is Iran’s independence in a world the US no longer fully dominates.

As always, international law bends before power. The strong dictate terms; the rest are told to comply. These talks expose an empire negotiating not from confidence, but from fear of a multipolar future.

Juan Pablo Fernández:

The great organizing axis of current international politics is the struggle between the United States and China.

Everything: rapprochement, sanction, treaty of all kinds, rupture, alliance or conflict are marked by these dynamics. The U.S. moves against the Iranian government are no exception.

The US pressure seeks to align the Persian country under its power structure as a secondary and regional objective, and in this way reduce the energy that China receives from Iran, as a main objective with an impact on the world order.

In order to achieve these objectives, the US set in motion its cards to deactivate those that Iran has always used in different conflicts, such as the threat of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

As there is no possibility that Iran will use its cards by sending the fleet led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and the lack of defense by China, the result is evident, and it will be that Iran will end up negotiating with the American power, yes, seeking the greatest possible amount of freedom.

Fernando Trujillo:

In these days of February, a series of conversations have taken place between representatives of the Iranian regime and representatives of the United States, in Oman.

These talks, focused on Iran’s nuclear program, have taken place in the context of geopolitical tensions. Tensions that have an echo of the past conflict between the Bush administration and the Hussein regime in Iraq over alleged chemical weapons that led to war.

Iran’s regime has defended its right to maintain a nuclear program, which not only includes the military area, but also the medical area. We are face to face with a confrontation between sovereignty, against the globalist impositions of the United States. But beyond this, we find ourselves between the confrontation between the West and the East.

The United States under the Trump administration has shown that it can intervene in a country and kidnap a president, destroying international law (which has been shown to be magical thinking crushed by political realism), but the regime in Iran is not Venezuela, it is a country governed not by mere political ideologies, but by a theocentric vision based on the Koran and this is very important. Because for what the West is a mere business, for Shiite nationalism it is a sacred duty, a jihad against the invader.

The United States is no longer what it was in the Bush period (as much as Trump wants to return to it), it has opened too many war fronts, it is a worn-out and polarized nation, with an Epstein Files scandal that has demolished its little political credibility.

If the diplomatic route fails, it will be catastrophic but this time it will be for the United States and the increasingly damaged image of its president.

Matteo Castagna:

The script we saw was pretty predictable. The Iran of the Ayatollahs is a nuclear power, very rich, with a very authoritarian theocratic regime. Beyond the proclamations, Donald Trump has to deal with a strong, geographically well-protected country like Afghanistan, which is difficult to penetrate. Iran, for its part, finds itself isolated because the Arab world does not want shocks in the territories and, therefore, is not willing to enter into open conflict on its side.

Diplomatic dialogues are the solution to these problems. But the U.S. wants “regime-change,” offering safe exile to Kamanei and associates. The Shah’s return would seem unlikely, although he is willing, as in the past, for a soothing and pro-American policy. For the stability of the area, I do not see possible nuclear disarmament by Iran, while the protests that have produced thousands of victims are the repression of pro-Western opponents that is not bringing the desired effect of ousting the big names of the theocracy.

 The talks should lead to a situation of renewed hope with a new Saudi-style government, but it is not at all easy to convince the Iranians to leave the big power.

Mediation for an intermediate way could come from Putin’s Russia, which would guarantee a quieter and more agreed transition. The goal will remain the dismissal of the Ayatollahs as it was for the Taliban. In this case, the use of military force is a very dangerous gamble for everyone that would destabilize many balances, so I don’t see it as viable. Khamenei must convince himself to concede something and the Americans too.

Regime change, with the Russians as guarantors for Iran may be the most viable solution, although a strategic and targeted attack by Trump could induce the regime into exile.