Today in Geneva, the third round of indirect U.S.–Iran talks on Iran’s nuclear program is expected to take place, once again under Oman’s mediation. Oman’s top diplomat, Badr Albusaidi, is to first agree a package of proposals with Tehran, then deliver it to the American side and collect Washington’s response—effectively shuttle diplomacy. The central challenge remains reconciling conflicting priorities: Washington wants stringent limits that reduce the risk of Iran rebuilding and expanding its nuclear capabilities, while Tehran is focused on meaningful sanctions relief and a return to economic normalization.
The differences are visible already in how the parties define the goal of the talks. The United States stresses it will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, and one of the most difficult issues is uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. At the same time, the U.S. administration signals that Iran’s missile program—especially ballistic missiles—and its broader regional activity remain part of the wider problem. Tehran counters that the negotiations should concern only nuclear matters, and that maintaining enrichment is a non-negotiable condition. On the Iranian side, the pressure is primarily economic. The priority is lifting or easing sanctions, including access to frozen funds and easier exports, while Iranian diplomacy presents the talks as a chance for a “fair and fast” deal—without giving up what it calls its right to civilian nuclear technology. Complicating matters further is the question of fissile material: the fate of roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, a level relatively close to what is commonly viewed as a “weapons-grade” threshold, remains a live issue.
The greatest risks stem from the fact that the talks are unfolding under the shadow of military signaling. The United States is reinforcing its military presence in the region, increasing the risk of escalation, while Iran warns that in the event of an attack, U.S. bases in the region could become targets for retaliation. Domestic political pressure in the United States adds another layer. Polling shows limited public support for a strike (in an Economist/YouGov survey, 49% of respondents were against and 27% in favor, with strong partisan divides), making decision-makers more sensitive to the pace of events and to the narrative of “who struck first.” In such an environment, particularly destabilizing are reports suggesting that some within Trump’s circle might consider a scenario in which Israel initiates an attack and the United States joins later—because escalation could then be easier to justify politically after an Iranian response.
For the oil market, the stakes are not only the architecture of any nuclear agreement, but also the risk of physical disruptions to supply and shipping. Investors and traders view the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic choke point. A significant share of global oil flows passes through this route, and even a credible threat of restrictions can quickly raise the risk premium embedded in prices. In February, Brent prices rose on fears of escalation alone, with levels around $72.50 per barrel attributed to heightened geopolitical tension.
Brent’s reaction to the outcome in Geneva could therefore unfold along two tracks. If there is credible progress—such as an outline of a roadmap and a moderation of rhetoric—the market may begin to unwind part of the risk premium. If negotiations stall, however, and the deadline set by Trump approaches without results, the likelihood of a price spike driven by uncertainty will increase—especially if maritime incidents occur or signals emerge that preparations for a strike are underway. Over the medium term, there is also the risk of a deal paired with sanctions relief, which could increase supply through higher Iranian exports and weigh on Brent—while military escalation would push prices in the opposite direction. For this reason, the market will price not only whether an agreement is reached at all, but also its scope, credibility, and the pace of implementation. In the background, preparations for a stress scenario appear to be underway: according to reports, regional producers, including Saudi Arabia, have been increasing production and exports as a hedge against potential disruptions following any strike on Iran.
