U.S. and Iran explore secret 'Third Path' amid rising tensions

The American-Iranian negotiations continued in Geneva on Tuesday, following an initial round in Muscat that focused more on establishing negotiating frameworks than on achieving significant outcomes on the core issues between the two sides. This was followed by an urgent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The second round of negotiations took place amid a highly dangerous political and military escalation, making it extremely difficult for both sides to retreat from their positions and threats. New aircraft carriers, including the Gerald Ford, are en route to the Middle East to be stationed near Iran, while Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned that, “These ships are dangerous, but the weapon that will sink them is even more dangerous.”

A European diplomatic source told Annahar, “The United States is acting without a clear horizon. The 12-day war proved that they cannot compel Iran into more flexible negotiations with harsher conditions. Overthrowing the Iranian regime is not a solution, as there is no viable alternative, and any large-scale war or limited military operations would have repercussions on the global economy and oil markets.”

The source addressed Iran and the American and Israeli conditions regarding its nuclear and missile programs, as well as its support for allied factions, noting that Tehran “may show flexibility in reducing its supply to its groups, particularly Hezbollah, after losing much of its capabilities. With the direct route through Syria cut off, it has lost the deterrent power previously discussed and no longer functions as Iran’s first line of defense.”

Iran might show flexibility on the nuclear dossier, but the source doubts it would make concessions on the missile program, which remains Tehran’s primary defense amid ongoing threats from Israel. The source also does not rule out the possibility that “Iran might endure another military strike rather than accept an agreement with Israeli conditions that would maximally undermine its capabilities.”

A third option

The military-political escalation raises questions about the possibility of forces withdrawing without achieving tangible results. The source says, “The United States will not pull back its military assets without an agreement, as doing so would undermine the image of American military superiority, which it leverages during negotiations. Therefore, failure to reach an understanding could lead to military operations.”

Despite the tense atmosphere, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emerged from the Geneva round with an optimistic outlook, stating that it produced “a set of guiding principles” that could pave the way for an agreement.

Araghchi told Iranian state television after the talks, “In the end, we were able to reach a general agreement on a set of guiding principles, which we will use to move forward and begin work on the text of a potential agreement.” He described the round as “more constructive” than the previous one in Muscat.

Araghchi revealed an “agreement for both parties to continue working on drafts of possible agreement texts, after which the drafts will be exchanged and a date set for a third round.”

Perhaps Araghchi’s statements relate to another path previously discussed by international law and negotiation expert Dana Wolf in one of her articles, where she raised the question of “a third option, beyond the two proposed paths: either a complete agreement or war.” Wolf suggested the possibility of developing an option currently being prepared in secret—a tactical agreement that would allow all parties to step back without formally conceding defeat.

Unlike a strategic agreement aimed at resolving the conflict at its roots, the third path envisions a tactical arrangement—a risk management mechanism based on the principle of “calm in exchange for support”—which, according to Wolf, could offer a practical way to manage the situation between Washington and Tehran.

The negotiation expert outlined the details of the third path, explaining that this type of agreement would involve “Iran surrendering some tactical assets,” such as limiting a certain level of uranium enrichment or restraining its regional factions, in exchange for critically important economic relief, including the easing of certain sanctions and the unfreezing of funds.

For the United States, this approach would offer a period of relative calm, allowing Trump to fulfill his promise to avoid costly and prolonged military entanglement. However, the main obstacles to the third path come from Israel, which fears a partial agreement that leaves Iran as an ongoing threat. This reflects a familiar pattern: managing the conflict rather than resolving it.

Thus, the reality between the United States and Iran teeters between agreement and war, and in certain scenarios, the third path could serve to reduce escalation and avert devastating outcomes. However, Israel remains a key obstacle, and Netanyahu’s trip to the United States may have focused on rejecting partial agreements that do not safeguard it from the Iranian threat.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.