1. The Situation: Geneva is now locked in as the second round of U.S.–Iran nuclear talks, with Oman mediating and Switzerland providing the venue—an upgrade in formality and signaling versus Muscat. Tehran is explicitly floating an economic package (energy, mining, aircraft) alongside nuclear file bargaining, while reiterating that missiles are off-limits. In parallel, Washington is hardening the coercive backdrop: a second carrier deployment is in motion and planning has shifted from “strike option” to “weeks-long campaign option,” raising the cost of a failed round. Net: the diplomacy track just got more structured at the same moment the military track got more executable. Swiss/Geneva confirmation via AP | Iran economic offers via Reuters | U.S. weeks-long ops planning via Reuters

2. The Mechanism: - Venue shift = process control, not vibes. Moving from Muscat to Geneva with Oman still mediating creates a tighter “indirect talks” architecture: fewer uncontrolled side-channels, more disciplined note-passing, and better compartmentation for phased trades (nuclear steps ↔ sanctions steps) without forcing a public “direct negotiation” concession. AP - Sanctions relief is no longer a talking point; it’s a sequencing choke point. Iran’s “compromise if relief is on the table” language turns the whole negotiation into a verification-and-finance choreography problem: what can the U.S. legally lift fast, what requires waivers, and what can Iran prove fast enough to unlock tranches without giving away irreversible nuclear leverage. Reuters | Times of Israel (BBC interview pickup) - Iran is trying to “monetize compliance” beyond oil. By putting energy, mining, and aircraft deals on the table, Tehran is signaling it wants durable commercial constituencies (capex, supply contracts, spares/maintenance tails) that are harder to unwind than marginal oil enforcement—i.e., deterrence-by-entanglement. Reuters - Missiles as a deliberate firewall. Declaring the missile program non-negotiable isn’t posturing; it’s boundary-setting to prevent “scope creep” from turning a nuclear bargain into a regime-security bargain. It narrows the deal surface area but also reduces U.S./Israel confidence that a nuclear-only deal reduces near-term strike incentives. Al Jazeera - Carrier + campaign planning changes bargaining power by changing timelines. A second carrier and “weeks-long ops” planning is logistics, not messaging: it expands sortie generation, standoff strike options, and air/missile defense coverage for exposed U.S. bases—shortening the execution window if talks stall. Once forces are in theater, the marginal political cost of using them drops. FT | Reuters - (Politics — one pass) Israel is pushing to widen scope; Iran is trying to exclude Europe. Netanyahu’s pressure to expand talks (missiles/regional proxies) collides with Tehran’s effort to sideline European powers as “irrelevant,” making the format fight a proxy battle over who gets veto power on what “counts” as a deal. AP | Al Jazeera

3. The State of Play:

Reaction: Iran is sending its foreign minister to Geneva and publicly advertising tradeables to frame the talks as “economic normalization for nuclear restraint,” not surrender. The U.S. is simultaneously increasing force posture and tightening oil pressure (especially China-bound barrels), creating a two-handed posture: offer sanctions pathways with one hand while making delay materially riskier with the other. Switzerland is doing what it always does—“good offices” legitimacy—while Oman remains the operational mediator that both sides trust to carry paper without leaks. AP | Axios (oil pressure to China) | Axios (Geneva round timing)

Strategy: Tehran is trying to convert any nuclear concession into sticky economic reopening—aviation and mining are long-lead, contract-heavy, and harder to “snap back” politically than spot oil flows. Washington’s internal move is to pre-bake a credible strike/campaign plan so that Geneva is negotiating under a live deadline rather than an abstract threat; that also positions the U.S. to demand faster Iranian nuclear steps up front. Israel’s play is to force the definition of “deal” to include missiles; Iran’s counter is to keep the channel narrow and European actors out, reducing veto points and simplifying enforcement discussions to U.S. sanctions machinery. Reuters | Reuters (ops planning) | Al Jazeera

4. Key Data: - 2nd round of talks scheduled in Geneva (after Feb. 6 Oman round). AP - U.S. military planning includes “weeks-long” operations contingencies. Reuters - U.S. deploying a second aircraft carrier (USS Gerald R. Ford) toward the region. FT | Axios - Iran states energy, mining, aircraft deals are on the table in the negotiation package. Reuters

5. What's Next: The next hard trigger is the Geneva session itself (expected Tuesday per U.S. official sourcing)—that meeting will determine whether talks shift into a sequenced term-sheet phase (sanctions tranches tied to verifiable nuclear actions) or revert to coercion-first escalation. Watch for the first concrete artifact after the session: either (a) an announced date for a third round with technical working groups (meaning the sanctions/verification choreography is being drafted), or (b) a U.S. move to operationalize the oil-pressure campaign against China-linked flows (meaning Geneva failed to produce tradable sequencing). Axios (Tuesday expectation) | Axios (oil pressure focus)

For the full dashboard and real-time updates, visit whatsthelatest.ai.