After indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian representatives in Geneva, the White House struck an intentionally ambiguous tone: diplomacy is President Trump’s preferred route, senior officials said, but a large-scale military option remains available. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Washington would not set a deadline for progress and that Iran was expected to provide further details of its negotiating position “in the coming weeks.” She declined to say whether military preparations would be paused while diplomats continue to confer.
The ambiguity follows upbeat public signals from regional mediators and Tehran. Omani Foreign Minister Badr described the Geneva meeting as constructive, saying participants had made “good progress” on identifying common objectives and technical issues and had drafted guiding principles toward a potential final agreement. Iran’s foreign ministry also offered a relatively positive readout, while U.S. Vice President Vance acknowledged some forward movement but warned that Tehran had not yet accepted several of Washington’s red lines.
The White House’s posture — emphasising diplomacy while explicitly retaining military options — is a familiar strategy of calibrated pressure. It allows the administration to keep leverage on Iran, reassure domestic and regional allies who demand firmness, and preserve the ability to respond quickly if talks collapse or if Iran takes steps Washington deems intolerable. But such hedging also increases the risk of miscalculation: signalling that force is still contemplated can harden Tehran’s negotiating stance and alarm U.S. partners who fear escalation.
This episode matters because it shapes the near-term trajectory of a relationship that has been volatile for more than a decade. Since the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal and subsequent cycles of sanctions, covert operations, and limited strikes, both sides have alternated between negotiation and confrontation. The Geneva encounter — handled indirectly and with Gulf intermediaries — reflects the mutual desire to avoid open war while leaving the outcome uncertain.
Regionally, the outcome will affect security calculations in the Gulf and beyond. Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states watch U.S. intentions closely and have urged a firm approach toward Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes. If Washington clearly commits to diplomacy and offers credible incentives, it could pull Tehran back toward restraint; if Washington’s threats appear merely rhetorical, regional actors may accelerate their own contingency plans. The economic stakes are real too: renewed tensions would pressure oil markets and investor sentiment.
For now the most likely near-term scenario is continued careful diplomacy underwritten by calibrated coercion. Expect more shuttle diplomacy — with Oman and European intermediaries playing visible roles — combined with parallel pressure through sanctions, intelligence operations and military readiness. The dual track buys time and options, but it will also prolong uncertainty for markets and capitals that prefer a definitive outcome.