A new round of negotiations is scheduled for February 26 in Geneva between Iran, represented by its Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and the United States, represented by special envoy Steve Witkoff, under the mediation of Oman’s foreign minister Badr al-Busaidi. According to a near-consensus among Western analysts, the talks are unlikely to produce a diplomatic breakthrough. As a result, the probability that U.S. President Donald Trump could shift toward a military option may increase. Here are five possible trajectories.
Scenario 1. A diplomatic solution
Tehran could theoretically offer a compromise on its nuclear program: limiting uranium enrichment to 3–5% or reviving the idea of a regional consortium including Gulf states. Formally, this would appear to be a gesture of goodwill. However, U.S. demands go far beyond enrichment levels. Washington is calling for a complete halt to uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, restrictions on the ballistic missile program, and an end to support for allied groups from Lebanon’s Hezbollah to the Palestinian movement Hamas, as well as the Houthis in Yemen.
For the Iranian regime, these conditions are largely unacceptable. Enrichment has become a symbol of sovereignty and resistance to Western pressure. Missiles and regional networks are viewed as key deterrence tools against Israel. The room for compromise remains extremely narrow.
Scenario 2. A symbolic strike
The U.S. military buildup in the region serves both operational preparation and diplomatic leverage. A limited strike on a nuclear or military facility, demonstrative but not large-scale, is conceivable.
The aim would be to increase pressure and extract concessions. But the outcome could be the opposite: Iran might walk away from negotiations, arguing that dialogue under direct threat is meaningless. Alternatively, Tehran could conclude that Washington is unwilling to wage a full-scale war and is confined to symbolic actions.
Scenario 3. The “Venezuelan scenario”
The most discussed scenario involves the elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and possibly other key figures, particularly within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. An ultimatum could then be presented to a new leadership: accept U.S. conditions or face further escalation. Supporters of this approach draw parallels with pressure applied to the regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, not a full invasion, but a “decapitation” of the system followed by political coercion. Yet Iran is a far more structured and ideologically driven system. The Supreme Leader is heavily protected, elites are politicized, and security forces remain operational. Even if such an operation succeeded, there is no guarantee of policy change. On the contrary, power could shift to even more hardline figures.
Scenario 4. A massive campaign against nuclear and missile infrastructure
This scenario would involve concentrated strikes against key nuclear sites: in Natanz, Fordo, Isfahan, Arak, and elsewhere, as well as missile bases. This would not be symbolic but an attempt to significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. An Iranian response would be highly likely, missile strikes against U.S. positions in the region or against Washington’s allies.
Scenario 5. Regime change
The most radical and riskiest scenario would involve a campaign aimed at dismantling the political and security core of the Islamic Republic, particularly the structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s main pillar. Iran possesses asymmetric response capabilities. An attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of global oil exports passes, is conceivable. Tehran-aligned forces could become active in Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen. Even a limited Iranian success, for example, damaging a major military vessel, would represent a serious political setback for Washington.
A large-scale ground operation nevertheless appears unlikely: the current U.S. force posture in the region does not indicate preparations for an invasion. The strategy would therefore rely either on internal instability within Iran or on rapid political capitulation, both highly uncertain outcomes.
