A panel of security and policy analysts said the tone and structure of the administration’s messaging suggest Washington is increasingly reframing the Iran challenge around multiple justifications simultaneously, including ballistic missile threats, regional destabilization and mass killings inside Iran.
Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst focusing on Iranian affairs at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said the speech reflected three distinct pillars that historically have shaped US decisions to escalate foreign policy crises.
“If you look at all these three pillars,” he said, referring to nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles and human rights violations, “they have been historically used to explain why the United States would get involved in a foreign conflict.”
According to Sayeh, the evolving rhetoric reflects growing pessimism in Washington about the prospects for diplomacy.
From nuclear file to broader threats
For years, US policy discussions surrounding Iran largely centered on the nuclear program. But Trump’s recent remarks placed greater emphasis on Tehran’s missile capabilities, warning they could eventually threaten the US homeland as well as American bases overseas.
“They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America," said Trump during his State of Union address this week.
Shayan Samii, a former US government appointee, said the messaging appeared designed to build a political and public framework for possible escalation.
“President Trump tried to create basically a framework for what a military intervention would be and why there is a need for a military intervention,” Samii told Eye for Iran.
He added that referencing the reported killing of tens of thousands of protesters carried particular significance.
“When he validates the number 32,000, that basically is telling the world that a massacre has occurred and we need to have a collective response for it,” Sami said.
The framing, he argued, was aimed not only at Trump’s political base but also at building broader bipartisan support in Washington.
Tehran’s defiant posture
Despite increasingly forceful rhetoric from Washington, analysts said Tehran appears to be continuing escalation while dismissing the significance of US warnings.
Middle East historian and political analyst Shahram Kholdi said Islamic Republic leaders are behaving as though the shift in tone does not signal imminent action.
“They are reacting as if they have not heard anything that President Trump has said,” Kholdi said.
He described Iran’s posture as a pattern of “passive-aggressive… escalatory behavior,” arguing that the regime is rebuilding military capabilities damaged in earlier confrontations during the 12-day war in June.
“They are rebuilding everything… the ballistic missile program, air defense systems,” he said, adding that Tehran appears to view Washington as “all rhetoric and no action.”
Diplomacy meets deterrence
The day after the latest round of talks concluded Thursday, Trump signaled growing frustration with negotiations.
“I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have… We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters Friday. “No, I’m not happy with the way they’re going.”
The remarks come amid a substantial US military deployment already positioned in and around the Middle East, including carrier strike groups, advanced fighter aircraft and additional naval assets — a buildup analysts say increases pressure while diplomacy continues.
Sayeh argued that extended negotiations may serve a strategic purpose by demonstrating that diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.
“As the talks drag out… it signals to the world that the West has exhausted all diplomatic options,” he said.
The combination of military buildup, shifting rhetoric and bipartisan concern marks a notable turning point in how Iran is being discussed in Washington.
Historian and political analyst Shahram Kholdi described the US military buildup as “a world war scale force,” comparing it to the kind of power Washington brought to bear during World War II’s Operation Torch.
As negotiations continue alongside escalating military signaling, the central question remains unresolved: whether the current posture is intended to force concessions from Tehran or to prepare the ground for a more decisive action.
