On Feb. 17, 2026, delegations from Iran and the United States left indirect, Oman-mediated talks in Geneva with a shared set of guiding principles — a framework to steer future work, not a finished agreement. Diplomats framed the outcome as a roadmap: enough political consensus to keep negotiations alive, but far too many technical questions remain for experts to resolve.
The talks played out beneath a charged security atmosphere. Iran briefly shut part of the Strait of Hormuz as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducted naval drills, and Washington signalled additional force deployments to the region. Those military moves were described by officials as deterrent measures; diplomats warned they nonetheless raise the risk of miscalculation and could squeeze the diplomatic timeline.
What emerged in Geneva
Participants said the package establishes mutual objectives and basic ideas about verification, sequencing and de‑escalation — but it stops short of binding commitments. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the outcome a mutual understanding on central principles, while a U.S. official, speaking anonymously, said Tehran has roughly two weeks to submit more detailed proposals to close outstanding gaps. In short: leaders have sketched the outline; technical teams must now build the architecture.
How the process worked
Oman served as intermediary, and the talks were deliberately indirect. Mediators shuttled positions between the parties, mixing plenary sessions to set political parameters with smaller technical working groups tasked with drafting implementable text. That division — settle politics first, let experts hammer out verification and implementation later — is meant to protect the political progress while giving specialists room to tackle the messy details.
Confidentiality was tightly guarded. Officials declined to publish the agreed principles, saying they need more technical polishing before becoming public. The U.S. delegation included Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner; sessions were held at secure diplomatic residences in Geneva.
Military signaling and diplomacy ran in parallel
Even as negotiators worked, naval and air movements around the Gulf increased. Officials insisted the posture was intended to deter escalation, but rapid deployments can compress options and increase the chance of accidental incidents that would undermine talks. Analysts and participants urged clear, reliable channels of communication and transparent rules of engagement during the technical phase to reduce those risks.
From principles to protocols
Oman pushed for de‑escalation measures and confidence‑building steps. Turning broad ideas into concrete, verifiable protocols will be the technical groups’ primary task: defining timelines, inspection mechanisms, sequencing and enforcement. Experts say transparency — not just in what is agreed but in how it’s tested and monitored — will be crucial to sustaining any future deal.
Regional and market stakes
The Strait of Hormuz is a chokepoint for global energy flows, so Iranian naval activity drew immediate attention from traders and insurers. Disruptions there can lift insurance premiums and ripple through oil markets, meaning commercial actors and regional governments will be watching vessel movements closely.
The shadow of recent strikes also hangs over the talks. U.S. officials have discussed contingency operations, and earlier this year B‑2 bombers reportedly struck Iranian nuclear sites as part of a broader campaign that also involved Israeli strikes — episodes that complicate trust-building and domestic politics on both sides. Tehran’s leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has used tough rhetoric against foreign interference, signaling internal constraints that will shape how quickly and flexibly Iran can move.
The road ahead
Geneva produced a fragile but meaningful beginning: a common framework and the political will to continue. Turning that framework into a durable, verifiable arrangement will require painstaking drafting, robust verification regimes, and steady crisis‑management channels to prevent the security environment from unraveling fragile progress.