At his Florida estate on February 1, former President Donald Trump told reporters he hoped the United States "could reach an agreement" with Iran on nuclear issues, while repeatedly emphasising that Washington has deployed "the world's largest, most powerful fleet" to the region. He framed diplomacy as preferable but warned that if talks fail "then we'll see whether" Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was right that a U.S. strike would ignite a regional war.
Iran responded with a mixture of guarded optimism and firm red lines. Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian (阿拉格齐) said Tehran remained "confident" that indirect negotiations with the United States could lead to an agreement, noting that information channels through regional interlocutors were facilitating productive contact. He reiterated Tehran's demand that Washington lift long-standing sanctions and respect Iran's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under international law.
The diplomatic noises come against a militarised backdrop. Washington has surged ships, including aircraft carriers, into the Middle East in recent weeks, and Israeli military leaders have been engaged in intensive consultations in Washington about possible strikes and operational coordination. Those preparations echo a violent episode last year: in June 2025, Israeli strikes on Iranian targets and a subsequent 12-day direct confrontation between Israel and Iran prompted U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and an immediate halt to bilateral negotiations.
The history is important. The U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 and the reinstatement of sanctions precipitated years of mistrust and proliferation risk. A fresh round of indirect talks between Tehran and Washington began in April 2025 and produced five rounds of negotiation before the sixth, due in mid-June, was cancelled after escalation. That pause has left a fragile diplomatic opening that both sides now appear willing to test — albeit under the shadow of military coercion.
Trump's mix of conciliatory language and overt force-projection serves several purposes. For Washington it preserves leverage: signalling a readiness to resume a deal while warning Tehran that diplomatic failure could trigger military consequences. For domestic and regional audiences, the message reassures allies like Israel and Gulf partners that the U.S. will retain military options. For Tehran, the combination presents an incentive to pursue limited concessions while hardening its bargaining posture on core issues such as enrichment rights and sanctions relief.
The risk of miscalculation is acute. Close operational planning between the U.S. and Israel increases the likelihood of pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes that could cascade beyond targeted facilities. Conversely, regional intermediaries — Oman, Qatar and other states reported to be channelling messages between the sides — may provide the low-cost lines of communication needed to manage escalation and salvage a deal. Whether those intermediaries can bridge the significant gaps on sequencing, verification and sanctions relief remains unclear.
A successful diplomatic outcome would require Washington to offer credible, phased sanctions relief tied to verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear programme, and Tehran to accept intrusive monitoring and explicit ceilings on enrichment. Without such sequencing, military pressure alone may only buy time or provoke further entrenchment. The economic stakes — including the potential impact on energy markets — and the danger of a broader regional conflagration make the coming weeks a delicate window for diplomacy.
The episode highlights a wider truth about contemporary Middle East diplomacy: powerful rhetoric and visible force projection can coexist with earnest, low-profile diplomacy. The question now is whether both capitals will accept the difficult compromises necessary to avoid another cycle of strikes and stalled negotiations, or whether temporary messaging will again preclude a lasting settlement.