Trump pairs deal talk with war threats ahead of Iran negotiations

Araghchi said Iran had never abandoned diplomacy based on mutual respect and mutual interests.

“The people of Iran must be spoken to with respect,” Araghchi said, adding that Iran would respond respectfully to anyone who did so.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, meanwhile, ordered the start of negotiations with the United States, Fars news agency quoted a source in the administration as saying, adding that negotiations would take place within the framework of the nuclear issue.

Fars later changed the wording of the report and said nothing is final about the status of the negotiations.

The report followed remarks earlier in the day by foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, who said talks between Iran and the US would probably be held in Turkey in the coming days.

At his weekly news conference, Baghaei said any Tehran-Washington negotiations would proceed step by step.

He said alongside “the issue of threats,” the priority for the Islamic Republic would be sanctions relief, which he called “a fundamental and non-negotiable priority.” He also thanked Turkey for its role in helping reduce regional tensions.

Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard, confirmed the possibility of talks but said the time and place were not final. It said talks would likely be held between the Iranian foreign minister, and Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy.

A senior Iranian official and a Western diplomat told Reuters on Monday that Witkoff and Araghchi could meet in Turkey in the coming days.

A Turkish ruling party official told Reuters that Tehran and Washington had agreed that talks would focus on diplomacy, seen as a possible reprieve from potential US strikes.

Qatar and Egypt were also being considered as possible hosts for talks, Iran’s ISNA news agency reported.

Speaking in Istanbul on Friday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran would consider US proposals for negotiations only if the military threat was removed first. Araghchi was in the Turkish city to explore a possible mediation initiative, though he made clear that Tehran would not negotiate under pressure.

Hours later, US President Donald Trump said he had directly communicated a deadline to Iran for reaching an agreement with Washington. “Only they know about the deadline for sure,” Trump told reporters, without elaborating on the terms or consequences.

The exchange reflects a familiar standoff: Washington is attempting to force rapid movement at a moment when Iran is politically and economically weakened, while Tehran is signaling defiance even as it quietly probes diplomatic off-ramps.

Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a member of parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee, said on Thursday that internal debates were under way in Tehran over how far Trump might go.

“Trump’s confrontation with Iran during his first term was a failure,” he told news website Didban Iran, setting out his assessment that the US president’s long-term aim was to end the Islamic Republic.

“He knows there is no third term, and this is his only chance.”

Ardestani also argued that regional powers including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey oppose the collapse of the Islamic Republic, which he said they view as destabilizing and economically disruptive.

Former Iranian diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi offered a more cautious assessment.

Speaking to Entekhab on January 29, he said Trump’s deployment of military forces was intended primarily to intensify diplomatic and economic pressure on Tehran rather than signal a settled decision to strike.

“Trump does not want to be remembered as a president who failed to deliver on his promises,” Ahmadi said, adding that the show of force was designed to deepen Iran’s economic crisis and force concessions.

Araghchi has denied that talks are planned with US envoy and Trump aide Steve Witkoff, even as he travels regionally to discuss mediation proposals.

Ahmadi said US military action remained possible but warned that Trump would face difficulties justifying an attack both internationally and to his domestic political base.

He also dismissed speculation that Washington might attempt to block Iran’s oil exports, arguing that such a move would almost certainly trigger military confrontation in the Persian Gulf and affect China and Arab nations in the region.

Ironically, Iran’s hardline daily Kayhan—close to the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—has suggested that Tehran itself should consider closing the strategic waterway.

Rahman Gharemanpour, an international relations expert, told Donya-ye Eghtesad that preparations for a major operation would require significantly more time and should not be read as evidence of an imminent attack.

In the same newspaper, Mashhad University academic Rouhollah Eslami said regional states are increasingly guided by cost-benefit calculations rather than ideological alignment—a shift that helps explain their reluctance to support military action against Iran.

For now, Iran’s position remains deliberately unresolved. Araghchi insists Tehran is prepared both for negotiations and for war—and given the balance of fear and defiance now shaping decision-making in Tehran, he may not be spinning for once.

“I think it’s only a matter of time before the US will conduct strikes against the Islamic Republic,” Lt Col Jonathan Conricus said in an interview with Iran International's English podcast Eye for Iran.

President Donald Trump said this week that the United States was prepared to act with “speed and violence, if necessary,” while Iranian officials have threatened immediate retaliation.

Trump also suggested Friday that Tehran may ultimately seek negotiations rather than face American military action.

“I can say this, they do want to make a deal,” confirming that he had given Iran a deadline to enter talks without specifying what it was. “We have a large armada, flotilla, call it whatever you want, heading toward Iran right now,” he added.

'Almost everything is in place'

Conricus, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), argued that the military tools required for meaningful action are already positioned.

“I think most of those capabilities and assets are in place and are ready to be deployed,” he said, adding: “Judging by the way things look now, almost everything is in place.”

He said the remaining question is timing—“the tactical operational opportunity” and political considerations around when to strike.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told lawmakers this week that the Islamic Republic is “probably weaker than it’s ever been."

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that Tehran was ready for talks only “on an equal footing,” but stressed that Iran’s missile and defence capabilities would “never be subject to negotiation.”

What would strikes target?

Conricus told Iran International any US strikes would likely prioritize crippling the regime’s internal control and ability to sustain repression.

He suggested an initial focus on “command and control” and the Islamic Republic's capacity “to exercise power domestically,” including “specifically targeting IRGC and Basij, but not limited to that.”

He also flagged cyber and communications disruption, saying he would “assume cyber and communications warfare against the networks and the communications infrastructure of the regime.”

In addition, he said missile infrastructure would be central—“related to Iran’s ballistic missiles,” including launch sites, silos and supply chains.

Nuclear-related facilities could also be targeted if the conflict escalates, particularly amid renewed American demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and curb its missile program.

Israel watching, bracing and waiting

The Trump administration is also hosting senior Israeli and Saudi defense and intelligence officials in Washington this week amid discussions of possible strike scenarios and regional fallout.

From an Israeli perspective, Conricus described a mood focused less on whether action will happen, and more on when—and what retaliation might follow.

“People are waiting for when will it happen? What will the consequences be for Israel?” he said, adding that Israeli forces remain at “elevated readiness.”

He argued that a weakened Islamic Republic would also undercut Tehran’s regional proxy network, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

“Getting rid of this horrible, terror-supporting, destabilizing regime would be very beneficial,” Conricus said.

You can watch the full episode on Eye for Iran on YouTube or listen on any podcast platform of your choosing.

“We do not have any plan or programme to meet or discuss with any US officials,” Araghchi told a joint news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

“Negotiation cannot be dictated,” he said. “If one party is threatening and setting preconditions, that is no longer a negotiation.”

“While they are threatening us, they say they want to negotiate,” Araghchi added.

Araghchi said Iran would only consider what he described as “just, fair and equitable” talks, but said the basic framework for such negotiations had not been established.

“We need to see the preconditions and the agenda first,” he said.

He warned that Iran was prepared for escalation if attacked. “We are ready for negotiations, but we are also ready for warfare,” Araghchi said. “We are even more ready than in June last year.”

He said any direct US intervention would change the situation fundamentally and could push the conflict beyond a bilateral confrontation, with wider regional consequences.

Araghchi described his talks with Fidan in Istanbul as “good and useful,” saying they covered bilateral, regional and international issues.

Fidan said Turkey was in contact with both Tehran and Washington as tensions rise, adding that he had held talks with US special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

“Yesterday I had long talks with Steve Witkoff,” Fidan said, adding that Ankara would continue contacts with the United States and other regional actors.

Turkey opposes any new conflict in the region and views continued fighting as a driver of instability, terrorism and migration, Fidan said.

Iran’s currency plunge in late December 2025 sparked nationwide protests that quickly escalated from economic grievances into calls for an end to the Islamic Republic. The crackdown that followed was unusually violent, killing thousands under a sweeping internet blackout.

Trump’s response was neither a formal call for regime change nor an immediate move toward military conflict. Instead, it combined public threats, diplomatic suspension, and economic pressure with visible military signaling designed to raise the cost of repression while preserving strategic flexibility.

“A massive Armada is heading to Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week, describing the fleet—led by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln—as “ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

The signalling grew more explicit on Wednesday, when the US president urged Iran to “quickly ‘Come to the Table’” and negotiate a deal. He warned that “the next attack will be far worse” than last June’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites if an agreement was not reached.

The military centerpiece of Trump’s strategy is the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, restoring credible strike capacity at a moment when Iran’s leadership is consumed by internal unrest.

Escorted by multiple destroyers and carrying nearly 90 aircraft, including F-35s, the Lincoln gives Washington a flexible range of options—from limited strikes on Revolutionary Guard assets to broader operations.

Additional US combat aircraft, armored units, and air-defense systems have been repositioned across regional bases, underscoring the signaling intent. The objective appears to be readiness without commitment.

Trump’s apparent aim is to exploit Iran’s weakened position to coerce strategic concessions—not only on the nuclear and missile programs, but also on Tehran’s regional proxy activity. That pressure has been reinforced by a proposed 25 percent tariff on countries trading with Iran, announced on January 12.

Washington’s approach appears calibrated to push for negotiations while Tehran is at its most vulnerable, stopping short of an explicit commitment to military action or regime change.

The ambiguity looks deliberate—and strategic. It may work, but it is not risk-free. US credibility could erode if threats are not followed through. External pressure may also strengthen hardliners in Tehran by reinforcing narratives of foreign orchestration, potentially unifying a fractured elite.

Iran’s armed allies in the region retain some capacity to retaliate against US interests or Israel. Whether they choose to do so is unclear, but the risk of escalation into a broader conflict cannot be dismissed.

Tehran, for its part, has hardened its rhetoric, warning of an “unrestrained” and “unprecedented” response to any US military operation, while simultaneously expressing openness to what it calls “fair” negotiations.

Pressure on Iran is also building beyond Washington. On Thursday, the European Union took what its foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, described as a “decisive step” toward designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation—its strongest signal yet that patience with the Islamic Republic is wearing thin.

At the same time, Kallas cautioned that the region “doesn’t need another war,” underscoring Europe’s own balancing act between pressure and restraint.

Iran’s streets are quiet after a bloody crackdown. But the economy is in free fall, and another round of widespread protests appears increasingly likely.

The key question now is whether Trump’s gunboat diplomacy can extract strategic gains without igniting the very conflict it seeks to avoid—or whether it merely postpones a more dangerous reckoning.