Trump warns Iran to strike nuclear deal or face harsher response
Washington – US President Donald Trump issued a sharp warning to Iran, urging its leadership to negotiate a new nuclear agreement or risk facing a much more severe military response in the future. The statement has intensified already fragile relations between Washington and Tehran, adding to fears of renewed confrontation in the Middle East.
In a public message, Trump said time was running out for diplomacy and stressed that the United States would not tolerate Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. He framed negotiations as the only viable path forward, warning that failure to act would bring consequences far worse than previous military actions.
Trump referred to earlier strikes carried out last year as a clear signal of US resolve. He suggested that Tehran should view those attacks as a warning rather than an isolated episode, emphasizing that future responses would be more forceful if Iran ignored US demands.
Iran reacted swiftly, rejecting the tone of the warning while insisting it remained open to dialogue under certain conditions. Officials said Iran would defend itself vigorously if attacked, arguing that threats and military pressure would not force it into submission.
Iran’s mission to the United Nations pushed back by recalling past US military interventions in the region. It highlighted the heavy financial and human costs of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suggesting that confrontation had historically brought little stability or benefit.
Tehran’s foreign ministry also indicated that no recent talks had taken place with US envoys and denied requesting negotiations. Iranian officials stressed that any dialogue would need to be based on mutual respect rather than pressure or ultimatums.
The situation has been further complicated by the movement of US naval forces into the Middle East. American officials confirmed that a carrier strike group had arrived in the region, a move widely seen as a show of force amid rising tensions.
Washington says the deployment is meant to deter escalation and protect US interests and allies. Iran, however, views the presence of additional US military assets as provocative and indicative of hostile intentions.
Tensions between the two countries have also been fueled by recent unrest inside Iran. Protests over economic hardship and political repression drew international attention, with Trump repeatedly condemning Tehran’s response and warning of possible intervention.
Although large scale demonstrations have subsided, the crackdown has left deep scars and contributed to worsening relations. US officials have linked their hardline stance partly to concerns over human rights and internal stability in Iran.
Trump has consistently argued that his administration will act decisively if Iran resumes activities linked to nuclear weapons development. He has pointed to earlier airstrikes on nuclear facilities as evidence that threats are not merely rhetorical.
Iranian leaders maintain that their nuclear program is peaceful and accuse Washington of undermining diplomacy by withdrawing from previous agreements. They argue that sanctions and military pressure have only deepened mistrust and hardened positions on both sides.
Regional analysts warn that the exchange of threats increases the risk of miscalculation. With military forces in close proximity and diplomatic channels limited, even minor incidents could escalate rapidly.
At the same time, some observers believe the rhetoric is intended to force negotiations rather than trigger conflict. Trump has often used strong language as leverage, while Iran has historically balanced defiance with selective engagement.
The coming weeks may prove decisive in determining whether the standoff moves toward talks or further confrontation. Both sides face domestic and international pressures that could shape their next steps.
As uncertainty grows, global markets and regional governments are watching closely. Any escalation between the United States and Iran would have far reaching implications for security, energy supplies and diplomatic stability across the Middle East.
