US and Iran slide towards conflict as military build-up eclipses talks

DUBAI – Iran and the United States are

sliding rapidly towards military conflict

as hopes fade for a diplomatic solution to their stand-off over Tehran’s nuclear programme, officials on both sides and diplomats across the Gulf and Europe say.

Iran’s Gulf neighbours and its enemy Israel now

consider a conflict to be more likely than a settlement,

these sources say, with Washington building up one of its biggest military deployments in the region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Israel’s government believes Tehran and Washington are at an impasse and is making preparations for possible joint military action with the United States, though no decision has been made yet on whether to carry out such an operation, said a source familiar with the planning.

It would be the second time the US and Israel have attacked Iran in less than a year, following

US and Israeli air strikes against military and nuclear facilities in June 2025.

Regional officials say oil-producing Gulf countries are preparing for a possible military confrontation that they fear could spin out of control and destabilise the Middle East.

Two Israeli officials told Reuters they believe the gaps between Washington and Tehran are unbridgeable, and that the chances of a near-term military escalation are high.

Some regional officials say Tehran is dangerously miscalculating by holding out for concessions, with US President Donald Trump boxed in by his own military build-up – unable to scale it back without losing face if there is no firm commitment from Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.

“Both sides are sticking to their guns,” said Mr Alan Eyre, a former US diplomat and Iran specialist, adding that nothing meaningful can emerge “unless the US and Iran walk back from their red lines – which I don’t think they will”.

“What Trump can’t do is assemble all this military, and then come back with a ‘so-so’ deal and pull out the military. I think he thinks he will lose face,” he said. “If he attacks, it is going to get ugly quickly.”

Talks have stalled

Two rounds of Iran-US talks have stalled on core issues, from uranium enrichment to missiles and sanctions relief.

When Omani mediators delivered an envelope from the US side containing missile-related proposals, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi refused even to open it and returned it, a source familiar with the talks said.

After talks in Geneva on Feb 17, Mr Araqchi said the sides had agreed on “guiding principles”, but the White House said there was still distance between them.

Iran is expected to submit a written proposal in the coming days, a US official said, and Mr Araqchi said on Feb 20 that he expected to have a draft counterproposal ready within days.

But Mr Trump, who has sent aircraft carriers, warships and jets to the Middle East, warned Iran on Feb 19 it must make a deal over its nuclear programme or “really bad things” will happen.

He appeared to set a deadline of 10 to 15 days, drawing a threat from Tehran to retaliate against US bases in the region if attacked. The rising tensions have pushed up oil prices.

US officials say Mr Trump has yet to make up his mind about using military force, although he acknowledged on Feb 20 that he could order a limited strike to try to force Iran into a deal.

“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he told reporters.

The possible timing of an attack is unclear. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is due to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb 28 to discuss Iran. A senior US official said it would be mid-March before all US forces were in place.

What’s the endgame?

European and regional officials believe the scale of the US deployment to the region would enable Washington to launch strikes on Iran while simultaneously defending its military bases, allies and Israel.

The core US demand remains unchanged: No uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. Iran, for its part, says it must keep its nuclear capability and refuses to discuss its ballistic missiles. It denies planning to build a nuclear weapons arsenal.

If talks fail, defence analyst David Des Roches said, US activity in the Gulf already signals how any strike would begin: Blind Iran’s air defences and then hit the Revolutionary Guards Navy, the force behind years of tanker attacks and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for a fifth of global oil.

But some Arab and European officials say they are unsure what Mr Trump’s endgame is, and European governments want the US to spell out what strikes would be meant to achieve – to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, deter escalation or pursue something more ambitious such as regime change.

Some regional and European officials question whether military action can alter the trajectory of Iran’s ruling establishment, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and protected by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Some say that with no obvious alternative political force in Iran and the leadership’s resilience largely intact, it is perilous to assume strikes could trigger regime change.

Military action may be easier to start than to control, and much harder to translate into a strategic outcome, they say.

Are concessions likely?

There have been few signs of compromise. Mr Ali Larijani, a close adviser to Mr Khamenei, told Al Jazeera TV that Iran was ready to allow extensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prove it is not seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran has since informed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi of its decision.

A source familiar with the talks said Iran’s backing for regional militias had not been formally raised at talks, but that Tehran had no objection in principle to discussing US concerns about proxies.

Three regional officials said Iranian negotiators had made clear that any substantive concessions rest with Mr Khamenei, who regards enrichment and missile development as sovereign rights.

Mr David Makovsky of The Washington Institute said each side was betting on the other’s limits.

Washington believes overwhelming force will compel Tehran to yield, while Tehran believes Mr Trump lacks the appetite for a sustained campaign, and Israel believes the gaps are too wide to close, making confrontation all but inevitable, he said. REUTERS