The second round of U.S.–Iran nuclear talks in Geneva has ended without a public breakthrough, and the mood around the negotiations has shifted from cautious diplomacy to open brinkmanship. Multiple outlets report the session on February 17, 2026 concluded after only a few hours, with mediation still routed through Oman and core disputes unresolved.

The central deadlock remains unchanged: Washington wants deep, verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activity, while Tehran insists its enrichment rights are non-negotiable and resists demands beyond the nuclear file. Ahead of the talks, Iran’s foreign minister met the IAEA chief, highlighting how technical safeguards, inspections, and enrichment thresholds remain at the core of any possible deal.

What makes this round uniquely volatile is the parallel military signaling. Reuters reported in late January that a U.S. carrier strike group entered the CENTCOM theater, and subsequent reporting described additional U.S. force positioning tied to “just in case” contingency planning if diplomacy fails.

Iran responded with its own show of force. AP reported Tehran temporarily closed parts of the Strait of Hormuz during live-fire drills on the same day talks proceeded—an extraordinary move in a corridor that handles a major share of global oil flows.

Taken together, Geneva now looks less like a traditional negotiation and more like a race against escalation. Both sides appear to be talking and posturing simultaneously, hoping pressure will extract concessions without triggering conflict. That is a risky strategy in a region already primed by prior strikes, retaliatory threats, and fragile deterrence lines.

So is this the last chance for peace? Not necessarily—but the margin for error is shrinking fast. If technical compromises on inspections and enrichment cannot be stabilized in the next rounds, the diplomatic track could become a formality, while military options move from signaling to execution.