Across Iran and the diaspora, many stayed up through the night to follow the speech via satellite television and livestreams, many hoping to detect signals about the likelihood of a US military strike in the coming days.
By morning, Persian-language social media reflected a swirl of alarm, anticipation and skepticism.
In his address, Trump accused Tehran and its proxy forces of spreading “terrorism and hatred” and said Iran continues to pursue missile and nuclear capabilities despite years of US pressure.
“As president, I will make peace wherever I can, but I will never hesitate to confront threats to America wherever we must,” he added.
For some Iranians, the balance of menace and ambiguity less than two days before the third round of talks between Tehran and Washington suggested escalation was near.
“President Trump issued the order for a military strike and put the final nail in the coffin of the Islamic Republic,” one user wrote on X. “In the coming hours, we will certainly witness very important events.”
Another focused on Trump’s reference to ballistic missiles—an issue Tehran insists should not be part of current negotiations—arguing it signaled the likelihood of military action may be greater than that of a deal.
“When Trump explicitly declares that the missiles of this criminal cult will soon reach American soil, it means that all paths of diplomacy have reached their final dead end,” a third wrote.
Yet others pushed back against what they saw as over-interpretation.
One user described the speech as “a bucket of cold water poured over warmongers,” arguing that Trump largely repeated familiar themes without announcing new measures.
“This speech, in no way, met the expectations of those who were waiting for a new step,” he wrote.
Another suggested Washington’s military buildup in the region told a different story than the speech itself. “The negotiations are less about reaching an agreement and more a tool for managing public opinion and buying time to prepare militarily,” he argued.
The divergence in reactions underscored the high stakes ahead of Thursday’s talks in Geneva, widely seen as a potentially decisive round amid reports that Washington has set informal timelines for progress.
Iranian officials sought to project steadiness.
President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations were proceeding under the guidance of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and expressed hope the country could move beyond its current state of “neither war nor peace.”
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck a similar dual tone. “
The Islamic Republic is prepared for both war and peace,” he told India Today, warning that any confrontation could quickly escalate into a “devastating” regional conflict while insisting that a “fair, balanced, and just” agreement remains attainable.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, however, warned that Iran would respond forcefully if the United States took military action while talks are underway.
Outside official circles, analysts also offered competing readings. Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, wrote on X that Trump appeared to be laying “public groundwork” for a military strike.
While there was “a brief nod to diplomacy,” he said, most of the speech underscored “the threat and the lethality of the regime,” suggesting limited optimism about negotiations.
As interpretations ricocheted across platforms, one post seemed to capture the broader mood: “These words reeked of war. May God preserve Iran.”
