 February 26, 2026 |
Good morning, world! Last-ditch talks to avert a full-blown conflict between the U.S. and Iran are scheduled to take place today in Geneva, but both countries are preparing for things to escalate.
Two U.S. aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers and refueling aircraft are massed within striking distance of Iran; President Trump, according to my colleagues in D.C., is telling advisers that if the country doesn’t give up its nuclear program, he’s considering regime change options.
Iranian officials, for their part, are operating on the assumption that U.S. military strikes are “inevitable and imminent,” according to my colleagues’ reporting, and are working to ensure the system survives whatever might be coming, even if its leadership doesn’t.
Both sides still say they want to avoid war. But today, I’m writing about why they might end up in one anyway.
Also:
|
 |
| A march on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Tehran this month. Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times |
Why it’s so hard for Iran to give up its nuclear program
Do the U.S. and Iran understand each other?
I was struck recently by reporting from my colleague Erika Solomon, who is our bureau chief for Iraq and Iran, that suggests they may not. American officials, she writes, have been “bewildered” by Iran’s refusal to concede to demands on its nuclear program, even in the face of war with a more powerful country that could end in the overthrow — or even the death — of the Islamic Republic’s leadership.
The Trump administration views Tehran as weakened to the point that it should be ready to cave to U.S. demands. In part, they’re not wrong: Over the past year, the country has indeed been rocked by a succession of domestic and international crises, leaving Iran in its weakest position in decades.
But any U.S. plan to bring Iran to the bargaining table also has to factor in the scale of the Islamic Republic’s commitment to its nuclear program — especiallyin the face of its own weakness.
Most analysts Erika spoke to said they think the current government views giving in to U.S. demands as riskier than going to war — that caving would “encourage the U.S. to go for the jugular,” as one put it. As for the nuclear program, another analyst told her, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, sees uranium enrichment as “a pillar of the regime itself.”
And so those who study the region increasingly see a new conflict as “almost inevitable,” Erika writes. That’s in part because of “a dangerous mismatch in perceptions between Iran and the United States.”
 |
| Note: Some U.S. ship locations are approximate. Source: New York Times reporting and analysis of satellite imagery, ship- and flight-tracking data. The New York Times |
Nukes and national identity
It’s worth revisiting a story from last summer written by my colleague Mark Landler, who covered nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration. The story, written shortly after Trump launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear installations, was about why the government was unlikely to give up its nuclear dreams despite the attack.
Iran’s nuclear program, Mark wrote, has become intertwined with the country’s sense of security and national identity.
Ever since a civilian nuclear program began under the shah, Iran’s leaders “have viewed it as a proud symbol of the country’s leadership in the Muslim world, a reflection of its commitment to scientific research, and an insurance policy in its dangerous neighborhood,” Mark wrote.
That commitment has only grown stronger under the Islamic Republic: In the mid-2000s, Mark wrote, the nuclear program was “turned into almost a fetish”: During daily state-organized protests, dancers held vials said to contain some form of uranium to celebrate Iran’s right to enrich.
But even some Iranians who are angry at the current government, or who don’t care about issues like “strategic deterrence,” still see the nuclear program as a source of national pride, Mark wrote. That pride would make it hard for any government to give it up for good, even if the U.S. did succeed in toppling Khamenei.
Iran’s survival strategy
For now, the Islamic Republic is focused on a survival strategy.
My colleague Farnaz Fassihi, who has covered Iran for three decades, has been doing remarkable reporting, speaking to half a dozen senior Iranian officials, people who intimately know the inner workings of the Islamic Republic.
They told her that Iran was positioning ballistic missile launchers along its western border — close enough to strike Israel — and along its southern shores on the Persian Gulf, within range of American military bases.
Khamenei has delegated responsibilities to a tight circle of confidants in case communications with him are disrupted or he is killed. While in hiding last June during 12 days of war with Israel, he named three candidates who could succeed him. He has appointed a former Revolutionary Guards Corps commander to run the country who has been instructed to ensure that the system survives any assassination attempts on its top leadership.
Khamenei “is expecting to be a martyr,” one expert told Farnaz. “He is distributing power and preparing the state for the next big thing, both succession and war, aware that succession may come as a consequence of war.”
 |
| Iranians have been following developments about U.S.-Iran negotiations. Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times |
‘I’m going crazy’
There is still a potential offramp. My colleagues report that one proposal being considered is a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments. But it’s not clear either side will agree.
The Trump administration seems to be betting that, facing the prospect of serious U.S. action, Iran’s government will find a way to give up its nuclear dreams. The analysts my colleagues have spoken to think that’s unlikely. We’ll soon find out who’s right.
In the meantime, I want to recommend one more story — about how the people of Iran are coping with the stress of waiting to find out whether they’ll be under attack soon. It’s a reminder that the stakes here go beyond statecraft.
“I’m going crazy,” said one woman named Sara, a chemist who lives in Tehran. “I wish whatever is supposed to happen would happen so we could get out of this limbo.”
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten