US begins moving F-22 stealth jets toward Middle East - report

A US lawmaker said efforts in Congress to restrict President Donald Trump’s authority to take military action against Iran would be dangerous.

“Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism,” US Congressman Mike Lawler told CNN.

“The president has the responsibility, as commander-in-chief, to protect our country, our interests abroad, and at home. For Congress to take action to restrict his ability to protect this country from known adversaries is dangerous and contrary to positions that democrats have taken in the past.”

Iran’s deputy foreign minister said Tehran is ready to take any necessary step to reach a deal with the US and hopes Washington displays the same willingness.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi added that a US strike on Iran would be a “real gamble.”

He said Tehran ​is ready to reach a deal with Washington as soon as possible.

The mood appears to shift with perceived signals from Washington, where President Donald Trump this week hinted at a deadline for Tehran while repeatedly floating military options if a deal is not reached.

Asked on Friday whether a limited strike on Iran was under consideration, Trump replied: “I guess I can say I am considering that.”

The prospect of conflict has triggered widespread discussion online, where users express a mix of dread, anger, and resignation. While many fear the destruction war could bring, others describe it as an inevitable outcome of escalating tensions.

“Many of us are certainly worried about war,” one user from Iran wrote on X, “but we are more terrified of continuing to live alongside these killers who have no limits.”

“No war means the Islamic Republic stays,” another user wrote. “The choice is yours.”

Casualties—of war and protest

The killing of protesters during nationwide unrest in January, along with the wave of arrests that followed and worsening economic hardship, has left some Iranians deeply pessimistic about the country’s future under continued Islamic Republic rule.

One user arguing against those opposed to a US strike compared casualties from Iran’s recent war with Israel to deaths during domestic unrest.

“12 days at war with Israel—how many did we lose? About a thousand and something,” the user wrote. “On January 18 and 19 how many were killed? Tens of thousands; in two days! Now do you think there’s a less costly way than war to get rid of the monster?”

Skepticism about diplomacy appears widespread.

An online poll conducted by the conservative website Asr-e Iran found that nearly 80 percent of more than 27,000 respondents did not expect negotiations to produce an agreement. In another poll on the same site, more than 70 percent said they believed the United States was using talks primarily to prepare military forces in the region.

Online polls in Iran are informal and not scientifically representative, but they offer a snapshot of sentiment among politically engaged internet users.

“Friends who oppose war, why are you condemning the people?” one X user wrote. “Beg Khamenei to stop the war. The people didn’t bring the country to this point.”

‘Packing bags’

Alongside emotional reactions, some Iranians are taking practical steps in anticipation of possible conflict, sharing advice on storing food, securing essential supplies, and identifying safer areas outside major cities.

Similar patterns emerged during the brief but intense war with Israel last June, when many residents of Tehran left for northern provinces or smaller towns. Long lines formed at gas stations in the early days of that conflict, and parts of the capital were temporarily emptied.

Many also express concern over what they see as a lack of preparation by authorities, noting the absence of public shelters or clear guidance for civilians.

“The government’s reaction to war is indifference and irresponsibility,” one user wrote. “After packing a bag, what do we do? Where are we supposed to go?”

For many Iranians, the uncertainty itself has become a source of anxiety, as the threat of war—once abstract—now feels increasingly real.

Marco Rubio will brief top lawmakers at the White House on Tuesday on Iran as the administration weighs possible strikes, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the planned meeting.

The briefing will include House and Senate leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees and will take place hours before Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address at the Capitol.

The administration has been building up US forces in the Middle East as Trump has warned of consequences if no deal is reached with Tehran over its nuclear program. Some lawmakers have pushed for a vote requiring congressional approval before any use of force against Iran, though such a resolution is not expected to pass in the House.

The prime-time speech offers Trump his most prominent platform yet to signal whether he is still betting on diplomacy in the days ahead, or preparing the public for strikes if talks fail.

While advisers have urged him to focus on affordability, immigration and the economy ahead of November’s midterm elections, the buildup toward a potential confrontation with Iran has overshadowed the run-up to the address.

Mainstream outlets have widely previewed Trump’s State of the Union address, highlighting how he might frame Iran alongside domestic political pressures.

Reuters wrote that the speech could be Trump’s best opportunity to rally skeptical voters behind his approach to Iran, including the possibility of military strikes if negotiations fail.

Trump on Monday brushed aside reports of internal dissent about military action, writing on social media: “I am the one that makes the decision… if we don’t make a deal, it will be a very bad day for that country.”

Democrats have sharply criticized his approach. Senator Tim Kaine said Trump was “bumbling his way toward war,” arguing he had scrapped a 2015 nuclear agreement that had constrained Iran’s program.

Bloomberg similarly described Iran as a major flashpoint Trump may address as he seeks to reset the political narrative after domestic setbacks.

The Associated Press said the address offers Trump a chance to make his case for possible action against Iran, citing polling that shows broad public unease with his handling of foreign affairs.

Iran in past State of the Unions

References to Iran in State of the Union speeches have typically surfaced at inflection points–the hostage crisis, regional conflict and terrorism, nuclear negotiations, or moments when presidents sought public backing for a tougher coercive strategy.

In the Cold War alliance era, Iran appeared mainly as a country whose stability and relationships mattered to Western cohesion.

President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1955 State of the Union message cited “Britain and Iran” among nations that had “resolved dangerous differences,” framing Tehran in terms of security and diplomacy rather than direct confrontation with Washington.

After the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis, Iran became the crisis itself.

Jimmy Carter’s 1980 address opened by saying that 50 Americans were still being held in Iran, calling the episode “terrorism and anarchy” and warning that if the hostages were harmed, “a severe price will be paid.”

After 9/11, Iran references shifted into the terror-and-WMD architecture of US strategy, placing Tehran within a broader post-attack security doctrine.

In 2002 and 2003, George W. Bush repeatedly cast Iran as a serious security threat, famously labeling it part of the “axis of evil” and describing its government as pursuing weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorism and repressing its people, while distinguishing between the regime and Iranians who “speak out for liberty.”

President Barack Obama repeatedly used the address to press for diplomatic compromise while stressing that the United States would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In 2014, Obama said diplomacy had halted the advance of Iran’s nuclear program, warned he would veto sanctions that could derail negotiations, and argued war should be a “last resort.”

In 2015 and 2016, he defended the nuclear agreement reached with Tehran, asserting that it had helped the world avoid another war.

During his first term, Trump invoked Iran to justify withdrawing from the 2015 deal and imposing sweeping sanctions under his “maximum pressure” campaign, portraying Tehran as a central destabilizing force in the Middle East.

In 2018, he said the United States stood with “the people of Iran” against a “corrupt dictatorship” and urged Congress to address what he called “the terrible Iran nuclear deal.”

In 2019, he called Iran the “world’s leading state sponsor of terror.” In 2020, he tied Iran to counterterrorism and deterrence, citing the killing of former IRGC-Quds commander Qasem Soleimani.

The pattern is consistent: presidents have used the nationally televised address to reset Iran policy at decisive moments–to sell diplomacy, justify confrontation, or redefine strategy.

Tuesday’s speech fits that same historical frame.