As US forces amass on Iran's doorstep and Tehran warns of major repercussions if war breaks out, a high-stakes diplomatic effort is under way to avert a regional conflagration after Washington threatened military action over Iran's deadly crackdown on anti-establishment protests.
On February 1, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi signaled a potential opening, stating that a "fair and equitable" deal to ensure the Islamic republic does not acquire nuclear weapons was possible -- deliberately echoing the phrasing of US President Donald Trump.
Trump himself confirmed the shift, telling reporters that Iran was "seriously talking" to the United States.
These developments follow an intense week of shuttle diplomacy: Iran's security chief Ali Larijani met with Vladimir Putin in Moscow on January 30, while Araqchi traveled to Turkey to consult with President Erdogan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
SEE ALSO: Live Blog: Iran Summons EU Diplomats Over IRGC Terrorist ListingThe momentum continued the following day in Tehran, where both officials met with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, who was widely speculated to be carrying a message from Washington.
Following these meetings, Larijani noted on X that there had been "progress in the formation of a framework" for talks. Iranian media reports now suggest a face-to-face meeting in Ankara between White House special envoy Steve Witkoff and senior Iranian diplomats may occur "in the coming days."
Iran has been in turmoil since December 28, when peaceful protesters began taking to the streets in Tehran to demand authorities act to stop spiraling inflation and a sagging currency.
Because of cuts to Internet service in Iran, it is difficult to assess the number of protesters who have been killed during the mass demonstrations, which appear to have eased in recent days.
The US-based rights organization HRANA, whose figures RFE/RL has been regularly citing since the violent crackdown began in Iran in December 2025, says its confirmed death toll, including security forces, is now 6,842, while the number of fatalities still under investigation is 11,280. More than 49,000 people have been arrested.
Some estimates by officials quoted off the record by various media outlets put the death toll at several times higher.
Late last month, Trump announced that a "massive armada" was moving toward Iran, warning it could act with "speed and fury" if necessary, while expressing hope for a "fair deal" that would leave Iran without nuclear weapons.
The US military has deployed a naval strike group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, off the coast of Iran.
SEE ALSO: The Tehran Street Corner Used For Iran's Combative PropagandaSome in Iran have also suggested a potential deal would see Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium -- reportedly buried underground following US strikes last June -- transferred to another country.
Despite the public optimism, analysts warn that the path to a deal is fraught with internal peril for Tehran.
Spain-based analyst Ata Mohamed-Tabriz told RFE/RL's Radio Farda that while the Foreign Ministry is signaling flexibility, hard-line elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) view these negotiations as a "deceptive game" and a "deadly poison."
Beyond The Nuclear Issue
The central question remains: What does a "fair" deal actually look like? While Trump maintains that his June strikes "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program, his demands have historically extended far beyond enrichment.
Germany-based opposition activist Mehdi Fatapour argued that for any agreement to truly satisfy the Trump administration and avert war, it would likely require what amounts to a "strategic surrender."
Speaking to Radio Farda, Fatapour said Washington may demand a total pivot in Iran's regional identity, including an end to its hostility toward Israel and the abandonment of its regional proxies.
SEE ALSO: Iran Signals Readiness For Nuclear Talks With US, Draws Red Lines On MissilesFor the Islamic republic, these are not just policy points; they are the ideological pillars of the state, and Iranian authorities have ruled out negotiating over anything beyond the nuclear program.
Even if a framework is agreed upon in Ankara, it may only serve as a temporary reprieve. Mohamed-Tabriz suggested a "minimum deal" might buy time but cannot resolve the "massive accumulation of social demands" and internal dissatisfaction currently boiling within Iran.
Analysts argue the threat of a "regional war" remains Tehran's primary bargaining chip. By framing the conflict as an existential disaster that would engulf the entire Middle East, Tehran has successfully pressured regional mediators like Qatar and Turkey to intervene.
However, according to Fatapour, if the Islamic republic chooses the path of "drip-feed" reforms and minor diplomatic concessions, it may still face a fierce backlash from a public that is increasingly weary of both sanctions and the threat of war.