The ongoing negotiations between the United States and Iran, now in their third round of indirect talks in Geneva, stem from long-standing efforts to limit Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program and ballistic missile development following the collapse of earlier diplomatic frameworks.
These discussions were initiated in April 2025 after President Trump sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei setting a 60-day deadline for a nuclear peace agreement. The talks occur against the backdrop of the previous 12-day war in June 2025, when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion against Iranian nuclear and military sites, with the United States conducting supporting strikes known as Operation Midnight Hammer that damaged key facilities before a US-brokered ceasefire took hold on June 24.
A massive US military buildup of aircraft carriers, warships, and aircraft in the Middle East has raised fears of rapid escalation into direct American attacks or bombing campaigns if the current Geneva round fails to produce verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. In his State of the Union address, President Trump reiterated his preference for solving the crisis through diplomacy but declared he would “never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror” to obtain a nuclear weapon, while accusing Iran of secretly rebuilding its program and developing missiles capable of soon reaching the United States.
Recent nationwide anti-government protests that intensified in December 2025 and peaked with mass killings in January 2026 have further destabilized Iran, with security forces killing between 3,117 people (per the Iranian government) and as many as 36,500 (per activist and independent estimates, including over 200 children).
Proponents of striking Iran again argue that only decisive military action can permanently degrade Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, deter its regional proxies, and potentially hasten regime change, pointing to the success of last year’s limited strikes as proof that force works faster than endless talks.
Opponents counter that renewed bombing would ignite uncontrollable escalation, including Iranian missile barrages on US bases across the Gulf, attacks on oil infrastructure, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and a broader regional war that could spike global energy prices and draw in additional actors. Many in the diplomatic camp insist that, despite the regime’s intransigence and the protests’ bloodshed, allowing the Geneva process to continue offers the only realistic path to a durable, monitored nuclear agreement without the catastrophic human and economic costs of another conflict.
We want to ask you, the reader: should the U.S. attack Iran? Answer in our poll below and comment your thoughts on what the U.S. should do next with Iran.
If you cannot see the poll, click here.
