The Tragedy of Ceasefire and the Nuclear Game: The "False Dawn" Behind US-Iran Negotiations
2026-02-26 19:08:31
When the negotiators from the US and Iran sat down for the third time at that symbolic table of peace, the world watched with bated breath. However, beneath the diplomatic veneer, the negotiations seemed more like a delaying tactic, each with its own hidden agenda. Trump was betting on the midterm elections, Iran on the nuclear fuse, and the global oil market was experiencing painful high-level volatility in this false dawn.
According to the latest reports, the third round of negotiations resumed today in Geneva. Iran offered an initial concession to reduce its uranium enrichment level from 60% to 3.6%, but the United States insisted on its red lines of "zero enrichment" and transferring its high-enriched uranium stockpile, casting a shadow over the prospects for the negotiations. Meanwhile, satellite images show that Iran is still hardening its underground nuclear facilities, highlighting the fragility of its diplomacy.
Trump's calculations: "Opportunistic deterrence" in the midterm elections.
For the current Trump administration, "winning the election" is a far higher priority than "winning the war." The latest polls in February 2026 show Trump's approval rating hovering around 43%, his disapproval rating at 55%, and his support among independent voters at a historic low of 26%.
Against this backdrop, he exhibited extremely clear opportunistic characteristics: although Trump's State of the Union address on February 24, 2026, was scathing, its essence was to establish deterrence rather than initiate war. Analysts point out that even with the deployment of the largest carrier strike group since Operation Midnight Hammer in the Persian Gulf, his core objective remains to force Iran to sign a "paper deal" that could boost its chances in the midterm elections.
The latest X platform discussion indicates that Trump has viewed this round of negotiations as a "last chance" and set a 10-15 day deadline to avoid a diplomatic failure that could trigger a military escalation.
A protracted war in the Middle East would completely shatter the Republican Party's political promise to "end the endless wars" and could lead to defections among voters in swing states due to domestic inflation and budget deficits. The United States has deployed F-16 and F-22 fighter jets to the Middle East, but this is more about exerting pressure than immediate war.
The internal divisions within the Republican Party: Vance's realism versus Rubio's radicalism
Within Trump's inner circle of decision-makers, this "delaying tactic" masks a power struggle between two forces:
JD Vance's concerns: As a representative of MAGA isolationism, Vice President Vance is well aware that oil and prices are the "heartbeat lines" for voters. He worries that a full-blown conflict would deplete the US military's interceptor missile reserves in the Pacific, exposing a vulnerability in the US competition with China. He advocates resolving issues through "maximum economic suppression" rather than direct military confrontation. Recent polls show that the cost of living has become a top concern in the 2026 midterm elections, supporting Vance's pragmatic approach.
Marco Rubio's calculations: As Secretary of State, while Rubio emphasized in his February 25 briefing that the Iranian missile threat was "unsustainable," his proposed "zero enrichment" threshold was extremely high. This high threshold essentially reserved a moral high ground for further action after diplomatic failure (such as authorizing an Israeli strike), rather than a genuine belief in diplomatic success. Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi stated in Geneva that Iran was prepared to make concessions but refused to completely dismantle its nuclear program.
Iran's strategy: to "rush" towards the nuclear threshold while delaying the inevitable.
Iran knows Trump's weaknesses better than anyone. Tehran's current negotiating stance is extremely deceptive—they have proposed in Geneva to reduce uranium enrichment from 60% to 3.6% in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, and are even considering transferring some of their highly enriched uranium abroad.
However, satellite imagery from February 2026 shows that Iran's reinforcement work on its underground nuclear facilities in places like Esfahan has not stopped, including the addition of new concrete protective layers and reinforcement of tunnel entrances. The Natanz and Parchin facilities are also undergoing repairs to address damage sustained after last year's attack, indicating that Iran is using the "negotiation vacuum" to accelerate its technological advancements.
As long as there is still a voice at the negotiating table, it will be difficult for the US military to issue orders for airstrikes, and Iran will be one day closer to completing the physical loop of its nuclear tests. Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei warned that while US aircraft carriers are powerful, Iran has the capability to sink them.
Crude Oil Market: A Geopolitically Driven "Prisoner's Dilemma at High Levels"
Crude oil prices are the most honest recorder of this deception. Since the beginning of 2026, oil prices have no longer been driven by supply and demand fundamentals, but have become a complete appendage of geopolitics.
Despite record-high U.S. crude oil production in February, Brent crude has stubbornly held above $70 per barrel. Market analysts generally agree that current oil prices include at least a $10 "geopolitical risk premium." The EIA forecasts an average price of $58 per barrel for 2026, but short-term uncertainty surrounding negotiations will likely persist.
This market is "high and fragile." Every time there's progress in the Geneva talks, oil prices briefly dip; conversely, once Trump reiterates the "10-day deadline," prices rebound quickly. Traders are playing a gamble: if talks break down, the risk of a Strait of Hormuz blockade could send oil prices plummeting to over $100; if talks succeed, weak demand after the political show could cause prices to crash. This extreme divergence in expectations has led to the current suffocating volatility.
Historically, US presidents launching military action before midterm elections has often seen a short-term boost in approval ratings, but the long-term effects are uncertain. Military action can create a short-term "rallying flag" effect, but if the war drags on or the economic costs are high, approval ratings often reverse. If Trump is going all in on the 2026 midterm elections, he needs to weigh this double-edged sword.
Conclusion
This US-Iran negotiation is not a bridge to peace, but a bomb with a deliberately drawn fuse. Trump needs negotiations to appease voters and suppress oil prices, while Iran needs negotiations to buy time for its nuclear test. The current balance is fragile: if the midterm elections remain unfavorable, will Trump gamble everything for the "rallying flags" effect? Historical data shows that while this strategy may have short-term benefits, the risks are enormous. The "false dawn" in Geneva may soon shatter, and the world needs to be wary of potential escalation.
According to the latest reports, the third round of negotiations resumed today in Geneva. Iran offered an initial concession to reduce its uranium enrichment level from 60% to 3.6%, but the United States insisted on its red lines of "zero enrichment" and transferring its high-enriched uranium stockpile, casting a shadow over the prospects for the negotiations. Meanwhile, satellite images show that Iran is still hardening its underground nuclear facilities, highlighting the fragility of its diplomacy.
Trump's calculations: "Opportunistic deterrence" in the midterm elections.
For the current Trump administration, "winning the election" is a far higher priority than "winning the war." The latest polls in February 2026 show Trump's approval rating hovering around 43%, his disapproval rating at 55%, and his support among independent voters at a historic low of 26%.
Against this backdrop, he exhibited extremely clear opportunistic characteristics: although Trump's State of the Union address on February 24, 2026, was scathing, its essence was to establish deterrence rather than initiate war. Analysts point out that even with the deployment of the largest carrier strike group since Operation Midnight Hammer in the Persian Gulf, his core objective remains to force Iran to sign a "paper deal" that could boost its chances in the midterm elections.
The latest X platform discussion indicates that Trump has viewed this round of negotiations as a "last chance" and set a 10-15 day deadline to avoid a diplomatic failure that could trigger a military escalation.
A protracted war in the Middle East would completely shatter the Republican Party's political promise to "end the endless wars" and could lead to defections among voters in swing states due to domestic inflation and budget deficits. The United States has deployed F-16 and F-22 fighter jets to the Middle East, but this is more about exerting pressure than immediate war.
The internal divisions within the Republican Party: Vance's realism versus Rubio's radicalism
Within Trump's inner circle of decision-makers, this "delaying tactic" masks a power struggle between two forces:
JD Vance's concerns: As a representative of MAGA isolationism, Vice President Vance is well aware that oil and prices are the "heartbeat lines" for voters. He worries that a full-blown conflict would deplete the US military's interceptor missile reserves in the Pacific, exposing a vulnerability in the US competition with China. He advocates resolving issues through "maximum economic suppression" rather than direct military confrontation. Recent polls show that the cost of living has become a top concern in the 2026 midterm elections, supporting Vance's pragmatic approach.
Marco Rubio's calculations: As Secretary of State, while Rubio emphasized in his February 25 briefing that the Iranian missile threat was "unsustainable," his proposed "zero enrichment" threshold was extremely high. This high threshold essentially reserved a moral high ground for further action after diplomatic failure (such as authorizing an Israeli strike), rather than a genuine belief in diplomatic success. Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi stated in Geneva that Iran was prepared to make concessions but refused to completely dismantle its nuclear program.
Iran's strategy: to "rush" towards the nuclear threshold while delaying the inevitable.
Iran knows Trump's weaknesses better than anyone. Tehran's current negotiating stance is extremely deceptive—they have proposed in Geneva to reduce uranium enrichment from 60% to 3.6% in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, and are even considering transferring some of their highly enriched uranium abroad.
However, satellite imagery from February 2026 shows that Iran's reinforcement work on its underground nuclear facilities in places like Esfahan has not stopped, including the addition of new concrete protective layers and reinforcement of tunnel entrances. The Natanz and Parchin facilities are also undergoing repairs to address damage sustained after last year's attack, indicating that Iran is using the "negotiation vacuum" to accelerate its technological advancements.
As long as there is still a voice at the negotiating table, it will be difficult for the US military to issue orders for airstrikes, and Iran will be one day closer to completing the physical loop of its nuclear tests. Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei warned that while US aircraft carriers are powerful, Iran has the capability to sink them.
Crude Oil Market: A Geopolitically Driven "Prisoner's Dilemma at High Levels"
Crude oil prices are the most honest recorder of this deception. Since the beginning of 2026, oil prices have no longer been driven by supply and demand fundamentals, but have become a complete appendage of geopolitics.
Despite record-high U.S. crude oil production in February, Brent crude has stubbornly held above $70 per barrel. Market analysts generally agree that current oil prices include at least a $10 "geopolitical risk premium." The EIA forecasts an average price of $58 per barrel for 2026, but short-term uncertainty surrounding negotiations will likely persist.
This market is "high and fragile." Every time there's progress in the Geneva talks, oil prices briefly dip; conversely, once Trump reiterates the "10-day deadline," prices rebound quickly. Traders are playing a gamble: if talks break down, the risk of a Strait of Hormuz blockade could send oil prices plummeting to over $100; if talks succeed, weak demand after the political show could cause prices to crash. This extreme divergence in expectations has led to the current suffocating volatility.
Historically, US presidents launching military action before midterm elections has often seen a short-term boost in approval ratings, but the long-term effects are uncertain. Military action can create a short-term "rallying flag" effect, but if the war drags on or the economic costs are high, approval ratings often reverse. If Trump is going all in on the 2026 midterm elections, he needs to weigh this double-edged sword.
Conclusion
This US-Iran negotiation is not a bridge to peace, but a bomb with a deliberately drawn fuse. Trump needs negotiations to appease voters and suppress oil prices, while Iran needs negotiations to buy time for its nuclear test. The current balance is fragile: if the midterm elections remain unfavorable, will Trump gamble everything for the "rallying flags" effect? Historical data shows that while this strategy may have short-term benefits, the risks are enormous. The "false dawn" in Geneva may soon shatter, and the world needs to be wary of potential escalation.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
