The third round of nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran will take place Thursday in Geneva, Oman announced, as the talks enter what may be their most consequential phase yet. The resumption comes slightly before an apparent 10-day deadline set by President Trump to either continue negotiations with Tehran or launch an attack.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi, whose country has mediated two rounds of discussions this year, said he anticipates the next session will deliver results. He described it as "a positive push to go the extra mile towards finalizing the deal."

That optimism exists against a backdrop of deliberate American pressure. Last week, Trump publicly revealed he was "considering" a limited strike on Iran to force the regime into a deal, the Washington Examiner reported. He has also warned of "bad things" to happen if a nuclear agreement is not struck, while amassing a huge armada and military buildup in the Middle East.

The message is not subtle. It isn't meant to be.

Iran scrambles to put something on paper

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Tehran was "still working" on a draft deal proposal, which Axios reported could be ready for U.S. negotiators by Tuesday. The proposal, notably, lacks the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a detail that tells you everything about how seriously Tehran's negotiating apparatus can actually commit to anything at the table.

Araghchi reiterated Iran's position that "there is no other subject" in the negotiations beyond its nuclear program, a move that limits the scope of talks and conveniently walls off discussion of Iran's terrorist proxies and regional destabilization. He did signal openness to a "full monitoring mechanism" for its nuclear facilities and said a "fast" deal on nuclear concerns is "quite possible."

That last word deserves scrutiny. "Quite possible" is not "yes." It is the language of a regime buying time while its centrifuges spin. Last year, Iran's enriched uranium was a short step away from weapons-grade level. The world has watched this negotiation playbook before: signal flexibility, delay on specifics, pocket concessions, repeat.

Why this round is different

Previous administrations treated Iran diplomacy as an end in itself. Engagement was the policy. Talks continuing meant talks were succeeding. That framework produced the original Iran deal, which paid Tehran billions for temporary, unverifiable restraint, and then collapsed because Tehran never intended to honor the spirit of any agreement it signed.

Trump has inverted the leverage structure. The military buildup in the Middle East is not posturing for the cameras. It is the credible threat that makes diplomacy possible. Iran's sudden willingness to discuss monitoring mechanisms and deliver draft proposals on a compressed timeline did not emerge from goodwill. It emerged from a president who left the door open to a military strike after previously vowing to intervene.

This is how serious negotiations work. You don't get movement from a regime like Iran by asking nicely. You get it by making the alternative to a deal more painful than the deal itself.

The Khamenei problem

The fact that Iran's draft proposal reportedly lacks Khamenei's sign-off is the single most important detail in this story. Iran's foreign ministry can negotiate all it wants. Araghchi can offer monitoring mechanisms and signal that a fast deal is "quite possible." None of it matters unless the Supreme Leader agrees.

This has been the fundamental flaw in every Western attempt to negotiate with Iran. The people sitting across the table do not have final authority. The man who sits in Tehran, answerable to no electorate, constrained by no term limit, and motivated by ideological commitments that predate every American administration he has outlasted.

In January, a violent crackdown on anti-regime protests in Tehran resulted in the deaths of thousands of protesters. This is the government that the international community is asking to negotiate in good faith.

The conservative case for pressure, not patience

Iran has limited the scope of negotiations to solely its nuclear program. That framing suits Tehran perfectly. It asks the world to ignore everything else the regime does: funding and arming proxies across the region, threatening Israel's existence, and brutalizing its own population. A deal that addresses enrichment levels while ignoring the apparatus of terror that enrichment serves is not a deal worth having.

The question heading into Thursday is not whether Iran will show up. Of course, it will show up. Showing up costs nothing. The question is whether anything Tehran puts on paper carries the weight of genuine commitment, or whether this is another performance designed to run out the clock while the regime inches closer to a nuclear weapon.

Trump's willingness to keep the military option visible and viable is the only reason that question even has a chance of producing the right answer. Diplomacy without consequences is just conversation. Tehran has had decades of conversation.

Thursday will reveal whether they're finally ready for something more.