“US attack avoidable, Geneva will be decisive”

“There is, in my opinion, no formal deadline for the negotiations. But this is a step that can represent a concrete turning point, in the sense that developments could go in a completely positive or completely negative direction”, says Karimi in view of the third round of talks between Tehran and Washington in Switzerland. According to the analyst, who was Mohammad Javad Zarif’s deputy when he was vice president (between August 2024 and March 2025), the outcome will “significantly affect” relations between the two countries, as well as “regional stability, energy sustainability and related strategic considerations.”

The professor believes that in this latest round of negotiations, which began in Oman on February 6, Iran is adopting “an extremely practical and objective approach” and is willing to “demonstrate the maximum possible flexibility since there is no more room for further maneuvers on both sides”. If Thursday’s negotiations fail, he points out, “it would suggest that the United States is making excessive demands. In that case, it would not be possible for Iran to respond positively.”

Karimi still believes the United States’ attack on the Islamic Republic is avoidable, despite the massive military deployment in the Middle East. “Iran can still manage the situation through reasonable innovations and pragmatic decisions. At the same time, the United States should come back down to earth and recognize the reality of the facts: Iran cannot be easily removed or defeated”, continues the analyst, according to whom a different approach towards Tehran could mark “a turning point for the Americans, who could enter a new phase in their relations with Iran and avoid a completely unnecessary escalation, with the costs and instability it would entail for the region and the world”.

“An escalation would bring no advantage to either the United States, Iran, or the broader international community, perhaps with the exception of Israel. Donald Trump and some exponents of the Maga movement should recognize that it does not represent an American strategic priority, but rather an issue linked to Israeli security needs, which influence US decision-making dynamics”, insists the expert, who sees “no reason or incentive” for Donald Trump and the United States to engage in an essentially “useless” crisis.

“There are no real strategic interests linked to oil that could justify it, on the contrary it could entail significant economic costs for Washington, starting from the increase in energy prices and possible threats to infrastructure in the region”, he concludes.