“NYT: Satellite imagery shows Iran repaired ballistic missiles sites hit in 12-day war,” i24, 2-6-26.  But the NYT’s satellite analysis is 7 months after the June strikes by the U.S.  Instead, almost daily intelligence has been watching, and not reported.  But the NYT does say “Experts say that despite some visible work, Iran’s three main enrichment facilities — Isfahan, Natanz and Fordo — appear inoperative.”  See “Iran Is at Work on Missile and Nuclear Sites, Satellite Images Show,” NYT, 2-6-26.

“Iranian spokesperson says U.S.-Iran talks over ‘for now’ | LIVE BLOG,” i24, 2-26.

Calculated, rational, but still wrong.  See “Why Tehran sees war as a survival strategy,” Iran International, 2-6-26.  In part—“Iran’s leadership is edging toward a war scenario not because diplomacy is necessarily collapsing, but because confrontation is increasingly seen as the least damaging option for a ruling system under intense internal and external pressure. While Iran’s foreign minister is right now visiting Oman for bilateral talks with the United States, in Tehran’s calculus, negotiations now promise steady erosion. War, by contrast, offers a chance – however risky – to reset the balance. This marks a shift from the Islamic Republic’s long-standing view of war as an existential threat. Today, senior decision-makers appear to believe that controlled confrontation may preserve the system in ways diplomacy no longer can. That belief explains why war is no longer unthinkable in Tehran, but increasingly framed as a viable instrument of rule. At the core of this shift lies a stark assessment: the negotiating table has become a losing field. This is not because an agreement with Washington is impossible. It is because the framework imposed by the United States and its allies has turned diplomacy into a process of cumulative concession. When nuclear limits, missile restrictions, regional influence, and even domestic conduct are treated as interlinked files, Iranian leaders see talks not as pressure relief, but as strategic retreat without credible guarantees of survival. From Tehran’s perspective, diplomacy no longer buys time. It entrenches vulnerability. In that context, confrontation begins to look less like recklessness and more like a way out of a narrowing corridor.”

“Iran Refuses to End Nuclear Enrichment in Talks With U.S.,” WSJ, 2-6-26.

“Trump calls U.S. and Iran talks in Oman ‘very good’ and says there will be another meeting,” NBC, 2-6-26.

The question is will the U.S. allow this to happen.  “Iran Returns to Its Negotiating Stall,” WSJ, 2-6-26.