President Donald Trump said he has not ruled out a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Iran, even as he pointed to a significant U.S. military presence in the region as a deterrent. In an interview on January 26 he asserted that Tehran “does want to reach a deal” and that Washington remains prepared to use force if necessary, while keeping the prospect of talks open.
Trump highlighted the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility as a signal of American resolve. White House officials have reiterated that military options remain on the table and that the president will continue to receive briefings and consider additional military plans this week.
The comments come amid years of frayed relations between Washington and Tehran following the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and subsequent rounds of sanctions, covert actions and proxy confrontations across the Middle East. The presence of a carrier strike group serves both as a classic form of power projection and as a hedge against miscalculation by regional actors that might escalate into open conflict.
For regional capitals and global markets, the dual message of pressure plus conditional diplomacy creates an uneasy calculus. European governments and many Gulf states prefer de-escalation and revived talks to prevent disruptions to energy supplies and shipping lanes, while Israel and some Gulf partners are likely to press for a harder line and clearer guarantees against Iranian malign activity.
The administration’s posture combines coercive signaling with rhetorical openness to negotiation, a mix that can either create space for back-channel engagement or entrench mistrust. How Tehran responds — whether with reciprocal outreach, calibrated restraint, or continued proxy activity — will determine whether the United States can convert this posture into tangible, verifiable diplomacy or whether it will feed a cycle of escalation.