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.”

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 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.

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.