Iran Warns of 'Ferocious' Response as Nuclear Talks Resume Amid Military Buildup

An elderly Iranian woman walks past anti-American murals in Tehran, her weathered face reflecting decades of sanctions and standoffs. Today, February 23, 2026, her country's foreign ministry delivered its starkest warning yet: any US military action, however limited, would be met with "ferocious" retaliation.

This comes just three days after Donald Trump said he was "considering" limited strikes if nuclear talks fail. Yet paradoxically, both nations are preparing for a third round of indirect negotiations in Geneva this Thursday—a diplomatic dance performed under the shadow of the largest US military buildup in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The Carrot and the Stick, Simultaneously

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, didn't mince words during Monday's briefing: "An act of aggression would be regarded as an act of aggression. Period. And any state would react to an act of aggression as part of its inherent right of self-defense ferociously."

The timing is telling. Trump's Friday comment about considering "limited strikes" came as US naval assets, fighter squadrons, and missile defense systems pour into the Middle East. It's classic coercive diplomacy—negotiate while your opponent watches your military might grow by the day.

Yet inside the negotiation rooms, a different tone emerges. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian posted on X Sunday that nuclear talks have produced "encouraging signals," while emphasizing Iran's commitment to "peace and stability in the region."

Oman's Delicate Mediation

The negotiations resumed this month through Oman's mediation, with the first two rounds held in Switzerland. The third round, scheduled for Thursday in Geneva, features Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner representing the US, while Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leads Tehran's delegation.

Oman announced Sunday that talks would proceed "with a positive push to go the extra mile towards finalising the deal." However, the US has yet to officially confirm its participation in Thursday's session—a hesitation that speaks volumes about the fragile nature of these proceedings.

Baghaei dismissed speculation about interim agreements, stating that "the details of any negotiation process are discussed in the negotiating room." He also pushed back against suggestions that Iran might capitulate under military pressure: "Iranians had never capitulated at any point in their history."

The Psychology of Pressure

In a Fox News interview Sunday, Witkoff revealed Trump's puzzlement over why Iran hasn't "capitulated" despite the massive military deployment. This comment illuminates the administration's expectation that military pressure would quickly force Iranian concessions—a calculation that may be fundamentally flawed.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi described a "mixture of optimism and pessimism" in the Iranian capital, calling it "pragmatically calibrated cautiousness." Iran appears to be preparing for both scenarios: diplomatic engagement and regional confrontation.

The contradiction is striking. While diplomats exchange "encouraging signals" in Swiss hotels, military planners on both sides prepare for potential conflict. This dual-track approach reflects both nations' belief that strength enhances negotiating position—but it also raises the stakes dramatically.

Beyond the Immediate Crisis

This standoff reflects broader questions about coercive diplomacy in the modern era. Can military pressure genuinely facilitate negotiations, or does it simply entrench positions? The 2003 Iraq precedent looms large—a reminder that military buildups can take on their own momentum.

For global energy markets, the uncertainty is palpable. Iran controls roughly 10% of global oil reserves and sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil passes daily. Any escalation could send shockwaves through already volatile energy prices.