Iranian officials say they are ready to present a negotiated framework to the United States in Geneva, but warned on Monday that past U.S. conduct makes them pessimistic about the outcome. The remarks, from a parliamentary foreign policy spokesman and the deputy foreign minister, come two days before a scheduled second round of talks in Switzerland on Feb. 17.
Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for Iran’s parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said the current negotiations do not include demands that Tehran stop uranium enrichment or ship nuclear material out of the country—positions he added the U.S. side has already accepted. Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Ravanshahi repeated that “the ball is in the U.S. court,” saying Washington must demonstrate that it genuinely seeks a deal.
Iran sought to draw clear boundaries around the agenda, stating the Geneva discussions are not the forum for ballistic-missile or wider regional security disputes. Rezaei insisted that Israel, which Tehran called the principal regional problem, should be excluded from the nuclear talks and addressed through separate, regionally focused channels to safeguard the development and stability of Middle Eastern states.
The comments underscore the narrow, transactional character of the latest diplomatic effort: Iranian negotiators appear willing to engage on nuclear constraints and verification, while resisting linkage to missiles, regional proxies or political recognition of Israel. That position has been a persistent sticking point in past rounds and remains a central obstacle to a broader, more durable settlement.
For Washington and other Western capitals, the question is whether Iran’s apparent readiness to negotiate translates into verifiable limits and safeguards on sensitive nuclear activities. For Tehran, credibility remains the major issue: the memory of America’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) looms large and informs public warnings about low expectations.
If the Geneva sessions deliver even a narrow interim arrangement—curbs on enrichment levels, additional inspection access, and calibrated sanctions relief—it would buy time and reduce immediate proliferation risks. If they fail, the diplomatic impasse could harden, prompting stepped-up regional tensions and a renewed debate among U.S. allies about deterrence and contingency options.