President Donald Trump’s maximalist demands on Iranian nuclear enrichment amid a military buildup suggest a rerun of 2025’s Operation Midnight Hammer.

Today’s round of US-Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva eerily echoes the infamous January 9, 1991, meeting in Geneva where former US Secretary of State James Baker delivered a stark ultimatum to Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, just weeks before Operation Desert Storm unleashed devastating airstrikes on Baghdad. 

Today, with President Donald Trump dispatching a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East, including the USS Gerald R. Ford joining the USS Abraham Lincoln, while his envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff prepare to confront Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, this second round of talks feels less like diplomacy and more like a prelude to Operation Midnight Hammer 2.0.

Back in 1991, Baker’s message was blunt: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, or face the full fury of a US-led coalition. Saddam Hussein ignored it, and the result was 42 days of relentless bombing that crippled his regime’s military machine. Fast-forward to 2026, and the parallels are conspicuous. The Trump administration has already struck Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, leaving what the president wryly calls “dust” at sites like Natanz and Fordow. 

Now, amid a massive military buildup, the United States is relaying uncompromising demands via Omani mediators: zero uranium enrichment, dismantlement of enrichment facilities, export of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile to a third country, and an end to support for proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias.

Trump leaves no room for ambiguity. “Either we will make a deal or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” he told Axios. On February 14, he escalated further, declaring regime change in Iran “seems like the best thing that could happen” and insisting, “We don’t want any enrichment.” 

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has fired back, affirming enrichment as non-negotiable and warning of inevitable war if the United States persists. At the same time, the recent appointment of Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani as Defense Council Secretary may signal otherwise. Tehran views its nuclear program as a sovereign right, rejecting any linkage to missiles or regional influence, while demanding sanctions relief and guarantees against US withdrawal from any deal.

Geneva as a venue of choice is no coincidence. Geneva, site of the 1991 Iraq ultimatum, symbolizes high-stakes final warnings under neutral Swiss auspices. The first round of indirect talks in Muscat on February 6 was billed as “constructive,” but deep divides persist.

Trump’s dual-track approach of diplomacy backed by overwhelming force mirrors George HW Bush’s strategy pre-Operation Desert Storm. A second carrier group signals readiness for “sustained operations” lasting weeks, with US forces bracing for escalation. Behind the scenes, messages via Oman underscore the urgency to “comply or face strikes.” Iran’s Ali Larijani likely received such a document last week, confirming Tehran’s awareness of the ticking clock.

Proponents of talks hail this as a diplomatic opening, building on Trump’s April 2025 letter demanding full nuclear dismantlement in exchange for sanctions relief. Yet skeptics see a replay of history. Iran rebuffed similar zero-enrichment demands in June 2025, prompting US threats to end negotiations. Trump’s meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 11 reinforced hawkish resolve.

For Iran, capitulation means humiliation; for the United States, half-measures risk emboldening a nuclear-threshold state. Failure in Geneva could trigger airstrikes on remaining facilities, proxy escalations, or worse, a broader war engulfing the Gulf. Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime, battle-hardened but economically strangled, faces extinction-level pressure.

To avert a 1991 redux, flexibility is essential. The United States could offer phased sanctions relief tied to verifiable dismantling, while Iran accepts monitored low-level enrichment as a bridge. Further meetings in Muscat or Geneva could broker the right compromises. But Trump’s “right deal or tough measures” ultimatum suggests Geneva will be central.

Iraq’s defiance cost dearly; Iran must weigh if zero enrichment is the price of survival. For America, true victory lies not in rubble, but in restraint, yielding lasting peace. Yet, as carriers steam toward the Gulf, the clock ticks back toward January 15, 1991.

About the Author: Abdulla Al Junaid

Abdulla Al Junaid is a geopolitical columnist and commentator in Middle Eastern and international media. He is the former department head for analysis and policies at the National Unity Party in Bahrain, the former deputy director of MENA2050, an advisory board member of the German-Arab Friendship Association (DAFG), and a permanent committee member of the Germany-GCC Annual Conference on Security and Cooperation. He was a guest speaker at the German-GCC Annual Conference on Security & Cooperation, the Herzliya Conference, and the Abu Dhabi Strategic Forum. He is also an executive partner at INTERMID Consultancy (Bahrain).

The post US-Iran Talks 2.0: Diplomacy or Déjà Vu? appeared first on The National Interest.