Washington’s defence chief, identified in Chinese reporting as Hegseth, told reporters in Titusville, Florida, that if nuclear negotiations with Tehran fail the United States has “other options” and that the U.S. military is “very well” prepared to execute them. His comments echoed President Trump’s long-standing insistence that Iran must not acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons, and they framed diplomacy and military pressure as two sides of the same policy choice.
Hegseth stressed that an agreement remains possible so long as Iran engages seriously in talks, but he emphasised readiness for alternatives if diplomacy collapses. Asked whether Washington is seeking regime change in Tehran, he said that is not the current policy, repeating that “our job is to be prepared” and that Iran can choose to negotiate over its nuclear capabilities.
The day’s rhetoric extended to the White House, where President Trump reiterated threats of force and said he had sent a “large” naval force toward Iran — comments that underlined the administration’s preference for combining public pressure, military signalling and private diplomacy. Trump added that reaching some kind of deal would be preferable but warned that “if we can’t, bad things could happen.”
This exchange matters because it comes amid long-running, fitful efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear programme after the breakdown of the 2015 framework that once constrained Tehran’s enrichment and inspections. U.S. sanctions, Iranian enrichment advances and regional proxy incidents have all raised the stakes for negotiators, and military signalling by Washington risks narrowing their room for manoeuvre.
The practical implications are manifold. Robust public warnings and visible force deployments aim to deter Tehran and reassure nervous regional partners, notably Israel and Gulf Arab states, but they also raise the risk of miscalculation at sea or in proxy theatres. European powers that favour a diplomatic solution could find themselves squeezed between Washington’s posture and Tehran’s domestic pressures, complicating efforts to revive a durable pact.
For markets and mariners, the prospect of renewed confrontation matters: any escalation would threaten shipping through the Gulf and could push up oil prices, while protracted stalemate would perpetuate uncertainty. The United States faces a classic foreign-policy trade-off — to present credible deterrence without foreclosing the diplomatic opening that many officials still say they prefer.