- February 17, 2026
- 3:10 pm
- Middle East
In Geneva, at the building of the Omani embassy, another round of US-Iranian negotiations is taking place. Almost simultaneously with diplomatic consultations, naval exercises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps began in the Strait of Hormuz. The timing coincidence appears demonstrative.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a key energy artery of the planet: a significant portion of the world’s oil and liquefied gas exports from the Persian Gulf passes through it. Any threats of its blockade automatically affect global markets, freight costs, and insurance rates. In this context, the negotiations in Geneva acquire not only political but also direct economic significance.
Military rhetoric against the backdrop of diplomacy
Statements by Ali Khamenei and a signal to Washington
The Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei on the same day made harsh statements towards the USA. According to him, even the most powerful army can receive such a blow that it loses the ability to restore combat capability.
A separate emphasis was placed on the US military presence in the region. Khamenei stated that the American ship sent to Iran is a serious tool of pressure, but an “even more serious factor” is the weaponry capable of sending it to the bottom.
The phrase quickly spread through international agencies. In conditions where an American naval group is already deployed in the region, such statements are perceived not as abstract rhetoric but as an element of psychological pressure.
IRGC’s position on the Strait of Hormuz
The Navy Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Rear Admiral Tangsiri stated that Iran is ready to block the Strait of Hormuz if the supreme leadership makes such a decision.
He emphasized that the weaponry demonstrated in the exercises differs from that used in real combat. This statement reinforced the signal that Tehran considers a military scenario as a real option, even though it declares no desire for war.
In turn, the American side continues to insist on zero uranium enrichment, while Iran defends its right to its own nuclear program. The gap in positions remains fundamental.
Geopolitical background: energy, security, Israel
The Strait of Hormuz as a factor of global risk
Blocking the Strait of Hormuz can cause an immediate spike in oil and gas prices, affecting the markets of Asia, Europe, and the USA. For Israel, located in immediate regional proximity, escalation means increased risks in security and logistics.
The region is already in a state of heightened tension. Naval activity, mutual threats, and the lack of compromise on the nuclear issue form an extremely unstable configuration.
According to analysts, under such conditions, a diplomatic breakthrough seems unlikely. Negotiations take place against the backdrop of a show of force, not de-escalation.
As noted by NANews β Israel News | Nikk.Agency, the combination of diplomatic rounds and simultaneous military exercises forms a model of “negotiations under pressure,” where each side seeks to strengthen its positions not only at the negotiating table but also in the waters of the Persian Gulf.
Is compromise possible
Disagreements over the nuclear program remain a key barrier. Iran continues to insist on the right to enrich uranium, while the USA insists on a complete abandonment of this practice.
In these conditions, statements about “beautiful aircraft carriers” by the American president and Tehran’s response about “beautiful means to sink them” acquire a symbolic character. Rhetoric becomes part of the strategy.
Iran officially declares that it does not seek war, but is ready for a tough response to any aggression. Washington, in turn, demonstrates presence and technological superiority.
Against this background, US-Iranian negotiations in Geneva look more like an attempt to buy time than a step towards a final agreement. If a compromise is not found, the military group in the region is unlikely to remain just an element of pressure.
The regional security architecture enters a phase of uncertainty, where each leader’s statement can affect markets, diplomacy, and military calculations. The question now is not only the outcome of a specific round of negotiations but what model of coexistence will be adopted in the Persian Gulf in the coming years.
