US-Iran Diplomacy or Conflict? Experts: Odds are "50-50"

2026-02-20 13:34:00, Kosova & Bota CNA

After the US-Iran nuclear talks ended in Geneva with strong American pressure on Tehran to limit its nuclear activity, leading experts in Washington say that the crisis is now at a turning point, and that the chances of peace or war are "50-50".

The talks ended on February 18th without any decisive progress.

The White House said the parties remain “far apart,” despite what it described as limited progress. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt told reporters that Iran is expected to come back with more details “in the coming weeks.”

Before the Geneva meeting, Tehran held military exercises, launching missiles towards the Strait of Hormuz, which is one of the world's most vital oil transport corridors.

It continued on February 19 with joint naval exercises with Russia.

The Pentagon has amassed large military forces in the region.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, equipped with F/A-18 and F-35 fighter jets, is operating in the surrounding waters. Missile launchers, including the USS Mitscher and the USS Michael Murphy, are deployed in the Persian Gulf.

Tehran continues to defy pressure over its nuclear program and uranium enrichment, insisting that it is entirely for civilian purposes and denying any attempt to build nuclear weapons.

Iran is not believed to have an active nuclear weapons program, although it has a history of atomic weapons research activities.

Experts: The odds are equal

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on February 18, four former American officials with extensive experience in Middle East affairs assessed the situation directly.

Michael Ratney, former US special envoy for Syria and ambassador to Saudi Arabia (2023–2025), when asked whether the region is heading towards war or peace, said: "I think it's 50-50."

Ratney said that each agreement may not resemble a comprehensive nuclear accord. Rather, it could be a framework, announcement or confidence-building process that allows Trump to claim to have brought stability, even if the core issues remain unresolved.

Joseph Farsakh, a former US Treasury Department official who worked on Middle East sanctions policy, also said that, even if the talks eventually yield results, a comprehensive agreement seems unlikely in the current climate of mistrust.

A more likely outcome, he said, would be a partial agreement that offers limited sanctions relief, postponing the most contentious issues until later.

Such a deal could significantly increase Iranian oil exports, potentially bringing them to around 2.5 million barrels per day and introducing between $50 billion and $90 billion worth of oil annually into global markets.

In an “ideal” scenario, greater stability could unleash what he described as a peace dividend, spurring foreign investment and broader regional integration.

But Farsakh warned that a rapid influx of Iranian crude could lower global oil prices, putting pressure on Gulf states that rely on higher prices to finance ambitious economic transformation programs.

And, even with a deal, he said, he is not convinced that the risk of future strikes from the US, or perhaps from Israel, would completely disappear.

Vali Nasr, a former senior adviser at the State Department, also described the situation as evenly divided.

Neither Washington nor Tehran really wants messy war, he argued, given the enormous risks it carries. This shared reluctance could ultimately save both sides from the brink.

At the same time, Nasr stressed that Trump's personal political calculus will be crucial. Traditional foreign policy analysis — focused on institutions and long-term interests — may be less predictive in this case.

Nasr also stressed that several global crises are unfolding simultaneously, meaning that developments elsewhere could quickly reshape decision-making on Iran.

Little room for error

Susan Ziadeh, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, warned that the military buildup itself creates momentum. With such a large naval and air presence already in place, she suggested, it may not be easy to simply withdraw.

With warships stationed near Iranian waters, missiles fired during military exercises, and leaders on both sides issuing stern warnings, the room for miscalculation is also limited.

The talks in Geneva followed a previous round in Oman on February 6, launched after regional actors made efforts to de-escalate for fear of wider destabilization.

Ziadeh also mentioned Israel as a key player, emphasizing that Israeli leaders may act according to a different strategic calculus.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to travel to Israel next to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 28, according to US media reports. /REL