Iran says nuclear deal 'within reach' after third round of Geneva talks with US amid war fears

An Iranian woman walks past an anti-US mural featuring Iran-US talks, next to the former US embassy in Tehran on February 26, 2026. (Photo by AFP)

The US and Iran held indirect talks in Geneva, aiming to prevent wider conflict amid a major US military build-up. Both sides exchanged constructive proposals, with Iran signaling a near-term deal is possible if talks focus on nuclear weapons prevention.

Did our AI summary help?

The United States and Iran held a third round of indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday, as both sides made a final push to avert a wider conflict amid what officials describe as the largest US military build-up in the Middle East in decades. After the discussions, Tehran signalled that a near-term deal with Washington could be possible.

Iran’s foreign ministry said delegations from Iran and the United States had exchanged “very constructive” proposals. Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, suggested that an agreement was close if the talks remained narrowly focused.

“If the main issue of the negotiations is preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons, this would be in line with the supreme leader’s fatwa (religious edict) and Iran’s defence doctrine, and an immediate agreement is within reach,” Shamkhani said in a post on X. He added that Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi had “sufficient support and authority for this deal.”

The talks followed sharp rhetoric from Donald Trump, who in his State of the Union address accused Iran of “pursuing sinister nuclear ambitions.” Trump also claimed Tehran had “already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.” Iran has denied the allegations.

Signs of openness in Geneva

The US and Iranian delegations arrived at the Omani ambassador’s residence in Geneva under heavy security, while Iranian exiles staged protests nearby calling for regime change. Oman, which is mediating the talks, said both sides had shown “unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas and solutions.”

An Omani official said the talks were later paused and would resume, while Rafael Grossi, the UN nuclear chief, also joined the discussions, AFP reported.

“(They) reviewed the Iranian side’s views and proposals, as well as the responses and inquiries of the US negotiating team, related to addressing the main elements of Iran’s nuclear programme and the necessary guarantees to achieve the desired agreement on this important issue in all its technical and monitoring aspects,” the official said.

Ahead of the talks, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted that the Islamic Republic was not “at all” seeking a nuclear weapon. By contrast, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran must also negotiate on its missile programme, calling Tehran’s refusal to discuss ballistic weapons “a big, big problem.”

Washington divided on next steps

US Vice President JD Vance said on Wednesday that Trump still preferred diplomacy and hoped Iran took the Geneva talks seriously.

Vance told Fox News that Trump had been clear Iran could not have a nuclear weapon. “You can’t let the craziest and worst regime in the world have nuclear weapons,” he said, adding that Washington was “hopeful that we’re able to come to a good resolution without the military but if we have to use the military the president of course has that right as well.”

However, hardline voices in Congress struck a different tone. US Senator Lindsey Graham said he opposed allowing Iran any uranium enrichment and openly backed regime change.

“If media reports are true that there is a consideration of allowing Iran to have very small enrichment of uranium for face-saving purposes: screw that,” Graham wrote on X. “This regime is made up of religious Nazis that are the largest state sponsor of terrorism. The regime has American blood on its hands and they have killed over 30,000 of their citizens simply because they demand the end to their oppression… I would like to see the people of Iran change the regime. It’s long overdue.”

As talks continue, the gap between diplomatic optimism and political hard lines underscores how fragile the Geneva effort remains.