More Stories
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 US military has begun moving 12 F-22 stealth fighter jets toward the Middle East after they were stationed at an airbase in the United Kingdom in recent days, The Times of Israel reported citing open-source flight tracking data and aircraft spotters.
The report said the F-22s were seen taking off from Royal Air Force Lakenheath in England and linking up with KC-46 refueling planes as they headed toward the region. The jets had arrived at Lakenheath last week and remained there for several days, reportedly due to issues with refuelers.
Dozens of fighter jets — including F-35s, F-22s, F-15s and F-16s — have been spotted heading to the region in recent days, according to the Military Air Tracking Alliance, a group of open-source analysts that monitors military and government flight activity.
The team also said it tracked dozens of accompanying fuel tankers and hundreds of cargo flights moving into the region since mid-February.
A sense of fatalistic anticipation is spreading in Iran as the threat of a US strike grows, with many expressing fear of war but also resignation that it may be unavoidable—or even transformative.
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.
President Donald Trump will step into the House chamber on Tuesday night for a State of the Union address shadowed by the prospect of new US military action on Iran, as his administration sends envoys back to nuclear talks in Geneva and builds up forces in the region.
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.
A speech overshadowed by Iran
Reuters columnist Patricia Zengerle reported that the State of the Union may be Trump’s best opportunity to persuade skeptical voters to rally behind threatened strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if no agreement is reached. The article added that the run-up to the speech has been dominated by a significant US military buildup in the region and preparations for a conflict that could last weeks.
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.
‘Will he tip his hand on Iran?’
Bloomberg’s Courtney Subramanian framed Iran as one of the major flashpoints Trump may address as he tries to reset the national mood after a Supreme Court ruling struck down his global tariff regime.
The speech, Bloomberg wrote, could provide a moment for Trump to explain why military action might be necessary, even as negotiations led by envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue in Geneva.
Bloomberg also emphasized the political risk: voters uneasy with tariff turmoil and aggressive immigration tactics may be wary of another foreign conflict.
The Hill similarly described Iran as a foreign-policy dilemma Trump may not be able to ignore, with questions looming about whether he will order strikes in the coming days. The outlet pointed to falling approval ratings and polling that shows voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, even as the military posture toward Iran intensifies.
The Associated Press, in a preview by Aamer Madhani, wrote that the address gives Trump a chance to make the case directly to Americans for his foreign policy, including possible action against Iran.
AP cited polling from AP-NORC showing 61% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign policy and 56% believe he has gone too far in using the US military abroad.
France 24 reported that two White House officials said Trump will discuss his plans for Iran, though they did not offer details, describing the speech as a potential moment to mount a public case for intervention.
The outlet added that Trump appears to be inching closer to conflict while also touting his peacemaking credentials and creation of a “Board of Peace.”
The Guardian cast the potential Iran strikes as a stark test of Trump’s “America First” promise to avoid “forever wars,” reporting that the president is even said to be contemplating a broader campaign that could amount to regime change – a comparison that evokes the 2003 Iraq invasion he has previously criticized.
The BBC, in a broader preview, listed “America’s relationship with Iran” among the foreign-policy issues likely to surface, alongside Ukraine and Venezuela, though it noted domestic topics may dominate.
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, George W. Bush labeled Iran part of the “axis of evil,” saying it “aggressively pursues” weapons of mass destruction and “exports terror,” a line widely remembered as a defining rhetorical escalation of the era.
In 2003, Bush again singled out Iran as a “threat requiring different strategies,” describing a government that “represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror,” while also noting that Iranians “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, saying in 2016 that the deal had rolled back Iran’s program and that “the world has avoided 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 and saying the “Iranian regime must abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons” and stop spreading terror.
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.
