Iran told negotiators and the press this week that potential energy, mining and aircraft contracts are being discussed alongside nuclear terms, as Geneva talks between Tehran and Washington resumed in mid-February 2026. Diplomats on both sides framed the negotiations as a test of whether sanctions relief can be traded for verifiable curbs on Iran’s nuclear activity, while U.S. officials signalled military pressure remains a contingency. Iranian officials named specific sectors they want quick economic returns from, and U.S. envoys were reported en route to Geneva for a new round of talks. The outcome will shape regional security calculations and Tehran’s economic trajectory in the months ahead.
Key Takeaways
- Iran said energy, joint oil and gas fields, mining investments and aircraft purchases are part of the package under negotiation with the U.S., according to a deputy foreign ministry official.
- Talks resumed in mid-February 2026 with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi travelling to Geneva and indirect U.S.–Iran contacts mediated by Oman.
- The U.S. has dispatched a second aircraft carrier to the region and warned it is preparing for the possibility of sustained military operations if diplomacy fails (U.S. officials reported to Reuters).
- Senior Iranian officials, including Majid Takht-Ravanchi, signalled readiness to dilute the most highly enriched uranium but rejected complete cessation of domestic enrichment.
- China accounts for more than 80% of Iran’s oil exports; U.S. measures to curb that trade could sharply reduce Tehran’s oil revenue, U.S.–Israeli policy discussions indicate (Axios report).
- Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were reported as part of a U.S. delegation travelling to Geneva for talks that Iranian sources later acknowledged.
- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted any deal must remove Iran’s enrichment infrastructure and said Israel would press for material to leave Iran.
Background
The current exchange follows the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, in which Iran accepted curbs on its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. In 2018, the U.S. withdrew from that accord and reimposed stringent economic sanctions, a move that sharply reduced Iran’s oil revenue and foreign investment inflows. Since then, Tehran has incrementally expanded its enrichment activities and reduced cooperation levels with international monitors, raising regional tensions.
Diplomatic openings have alternated with military friction: in June 2025 the U.S. and Israel struck sites Tehran described as tied to nuclear activity, and Washington has since reinforced naval assets in the Gulf. Regional players including Oman have acted as intermediaries in prior contacts; this round is notable for being bilateral between Iran and the U.S., rather than multilateral as in 2015. Domestic political pressures in Tehran and Washington complicate negotiators’ room for maneuver.
Main Event
On Sunday, Hamid Ghanbari, deputy director for economic diplomacy at Iran’s foreign ministry, told state-associated media that U.S. gains must be visible and rapid if a deal is to endure — specifically flagging oil and gas joint fields, mining projects and aircraft procurement. Iranian sources framed these commercial elements as essential to any durable settlement and argued the 2015 pact had not delivered sufficient U.S. economic benefits.
U.S. officials have not publicly detailed concessions under consideration, but Reuters reported the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the region and said Washington is preparing for potential military options should diplomacy fail. President Donald Trump and senior aides framed the approach as preference for negotiation but readiness for force if required; Secretary of State Marco Rubio said diplomacy is preferred while acknowledging it might not succeed.
Reports said a U.S. delegation including envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner travelled to Geneva to meet Iranian interlocutors; Iranian officials later confirmed meetings would take place. Iran sent Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to Geneva where he was scheduled to engage in indirect talks with U.S. representatives and to meet the head of the IAEA and other officials.
Iranian deputy minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC the ball was “in America’s court” to show seriousness about a deal and referenced statements by Iran’s atomic chief that dilution of its most highly enriched uranium could be a bargaining chip. Yet Tehran maintained it would not accept a total end to domestic enrichment capacity, a major sticking point for Washington and Israel.
Analysis & Implications
Economically, inclusion of energy, mining and aircraft purchases as bargaining items signals Tehran seeks rapid, tangible benefits to blunt public discontent and offset sanctions pain. If implemented, such deals could reopen investment channels and accelerate revenue flows, but they would require careful guarantees and monitoring to satisfy U.S. domestic politics and regional security partners.
Strategically, the U.S. carrier deployment underscores that Washington retains kinetic leverage as well as diplomatic levers. That dual track raises the stakes: failure of talks could prompt a security escalation that would disrupt oil markets and risk broader confrontation, while a successful agreement that leaves enrichment capability in Iran — even limited — could still alarm Israel and Gulf states.
Geopolitically, China’s role is central: with over 80% of Iranian oil exports heading to China, any meaningful U.S. effort to reduce that trade would materially shrink Tehran’s revenues unless China adjusts its imports. That economic pressure is one reason Iran is pressing for quick-return projects in multiple sectors rather than long-term commitments alone.
Domestically in the U.S. and Israel, political leaders are divided on acceptable trade-offs. Israeli levers include public pressure and coordination with Washington; Prime Minister Netanyahu demanded that enriched material leave Iran and the dismantling of enrichment infrastructure. These demands narrow possible compromises and may limit what U.S. negotiators can promise without provoking allied concern.
Comparison & Data
| Item | 2015 JCPOA | 2026 Negotiation Signals |
|---|---|---|
| Enrichment limits | Strict caps and monitoring | Possible dilution of highest enrichment; Iran rejects zero enrichment |
| Sanctions relief | Broad economic reopening | Targeted, sector-specific benefits (energy, mining, aircraft) |
| Negotiating format | Multilateral (P5+1) | Bilateral U.S.–Iran talks with Oman mediation |
The table highlights the shift from a broad multilateral framework in 2015 to narrower, bilateral talks in 2026 and shows Iran pressing for fast-yield commercial elements. That gap complicates verification mechanisms and increases the importance of third-party monitoring (IAEA) in any lasting agreement.
Reactions & Quotes
U.S. Secretary of State comments framed the U.S. position as open to diplomacy while keeping military options visible. The following excerpts show the diplomatic posture and Iranian demands in condensed form.
No one’s ever been able to do a successful deal with Iran but we’re going to try.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (news conference, Bratislava)
Rubio’s remark encapsulates the U.S. preference for negotiation yet acknowledges the difficulty of reaching consensus given historical precedent and allied concerns.
For the sake of an agreement’s durability, it is essential that the U.S. also benefits in areas with high and quick economic returns.
Hamid Ghanbari, Deputy Director for Economic Diplomacy (reported to Fars)
Ghanbari’s comment signals Tehran’s interest in using economic incentives to make any deal politically sustainable at home, emphasizing projects that produce visible results rapidly.
There shall be no enrichment capability — not stopping the enrichment process, but dismantling the equipment and the infrastructure that allows you to enrich in the first place.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Conference of Presidents speech)
Netanyahu’s statement reflects Israel’s maximalist security demand and helps explain why Israeli officials have been cautious about any U.S.–Iran arrangement that preserves enrichment capabilities inside Iran.
Unconfirmed
- Precise deal text and concrete economic packages (values, timelines, vendor names) for energy, mining or aircraft purchases have not been published and remain unverified.
- The extent to which Washington will accept any remaining Iranian enrichment capability or specific verification procedures is not yet confirmed.
- Reported plans to reduce Iran’s oil exports to China were discussed at senior levels, but the precise measures, timings or Chinese response remain unverified.
- Whether the presence of a second U.S. carrier reflects an imminent military plan or routine precaution has not been independently confirmed.
Bottom Line
Negotiations in Geneva in February 2026 combine traditional nuclear bargaining with explicit economic bargaining chips — a sign Tehran wants fast, visible gains while Washington seeks verifiable limits. The inclusion of energy, mining and aircraft purchases broadens the scope of talks but raises verification and political friction challenges, both domestically and among regional allies.
Outcomes will hinge on whether negotiators can craft durable monitoring arrangements and whether third parties, notably China and Israel, adjust their policies in ways that make a deal both practical and politically defensible. If talks fail, the current mix of economic pressure and military posturing suggests heightened risk of escalation that could reverberate through energy markets and regional security.
Sources
- CNBC (news report) — original article summarising Iranian statements and Geneva talks.
- Reuters (news) — reporting referenced on U.S. carrier movements and delegation travel.
- Fars News Agency (semi-official Iranian media) — cited for comments by Iran’s deputy foreign ministry official.
- BBC (news) — coverage of Iranian officials’ public comments and interviews.
- Axios (news) — reporting on U.S.–Israeli discussions regarding Iran’s oil exports to China.
- IAEA (official) — role and verification mechanisms for nuclear agreements.