Trump rhetoric signals shift toward conflict, experts say

Delegations from Tehran and Washington met under Omani mediation for the third round of indirect talks, focusing on Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief, according to Iran’s foreign ministry.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said technical discussions would resume next week in Vienna.

While the Omani top diplomat spoke of “progress” in negotiations, US media said no breakthrough was achieved.

Iran rejected major US proposals, including transferring enriched uranium abroad, halting enrichment, and dismantling certain nuclear sites, The Wall Street Journal reported citing informed sources.

US military and political pressure continues

The talks took place amid a large US military presence in the Middle East. Shortly after the talks, CENTCOM chief Admiral Brad Cooper briefed President Donald Trump on potential options, ranging from limited strikes on nuclear and missile sites to broader operations involving Israel, carrying risks of escalation and regime change.

White House officials stressed that no decisions had yet been made.

In Washington, lawmakers signaled hardline positions. Senate Republicans posted on X that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.” Representative Carlos Gimenez warned that past deals “breathed new life into the regime” and argued that extraordinary measures may be needed to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

US Vice President JD Vance, cited by The Washington Post, said the United States would avoid another prolonged Middle East war while keeping both diplomatic and military options open.

The talks coincide with domestic pressures in Iran, where universities have shifted to online-only classes amid ongoing protests. Observers say the lack of breakthroughs highlights the fragile state of the diplomatic process.

Negotiators are expected to return next week. Core disagreements over enrichment and sanctions remain, leaving the outcome uncertain as Iran continues uranium enrichment and the US maintains military readiness in the region.

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.”

“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," the President said during his address.

The remarks come ahead of upcoming negotiations between Tehran and Washington in Geneva over Iran’s disputed nuclear program and concerns over the country’s expanding missile arsenal.

“They were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, in particular nuclear weapons,” he said, adding, “Yet they continue starting it all over, and are this moment again, pursuing their sinister ambitions.”

Reaffirming Washington’s longstanding position, Trump pledged that the Islamic Republic would not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon — a moment that drew visible bipartisan reaction in the chamber, with lawmakers from both parties rising as he reiterated the policy.

The president stressed that negotiations with Tehran were ongoing but warned the United States remained prepared to act if necessary.

For weeks, Trump has pointed to a large US naval buildup near Iran, including two aircraft carriers and multiple warships positioned in the region. Analysts say the scale of the deployment is comparable to past major US military operations, with advanced warplanes and strike capabilities in place.

“We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words ‘we will never have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

‘32,000 killed’

During the address, Trump also acknowledged the massacre that followed recent nationwide protests calling for an end to the Islamic Republic.

“And just over the last couple of months, with the protests, they've killed at least it looks like 32,000 protesters in their own country,” he said, adding that authorities had “shot them and hung them.”

“For decades since they seized control of that proud nation, 47 years ago, the regime and its murderous proxies have spread nothing but terrorism, death and hate,” Trump said.

Trump also referenced the US killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020 during his first term.

“We took out Soleimani. I did that during my first term. Had a huge impact. He was the father of the roadside bomb.”

“Hello. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) can hear your voice and wants to help you. Below is the necessary guidance on how to securely contact us virtually,” the post said, accompanied by a short video outlining encrypted communication methods.

The message marks the CIA’s most explicit Persian-language public outreach effort, similar to prior calls by Israel’s Mossad but rare for the US agency.

The move appears aimed at gathering intelligence on Iran’s nuclear and military programs, as well as domestic dissent, while providing support to potential informants.

In recent years, several intelligence services - especially the CIA, and to a lesser extent MI6 and Mossad - have normalized open, platform-based messaging that resembles advertising but is intended for secure outreach to potential sources.

In 2025, the head of MI6 used X to unveil “Silent Courier,” a Tor-only dark-web portal for people in hostile or high-risk states - particularly Russia - to contact the agency securely.

In October 2024, the CIA published text and infographic instructions in Mandarin, Korean, and Farsi on how to securely contact the agency through its public and dark‑web (onion) sites.

Mexico has deployed thousands of troops after coordinated attacks erupted across at least 20 states following the capture and death of Jalisco New Generation Cartel leader Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known as El Mencho.

Cartel fighters torched buses, blocked highways and clashed with security forces, leaving dozens dead and forcing authorities to mobilize nearly 10,000 personnel nationwide.

While Mexican authorities frame the unrest as cartel retaliation, security analysts say such episodes increasingly unfold within transnational financial and trafficking systems that extend beyond Mexico’s borders.

Those systems, experts say, have in some cases intersected with Iranian state-aligned networks operating across Latin America.

“There are longstanding money-laundering and trafficking ecosystems that connect Latin American cartels, Iranian state-aligned networks and global criminal finance,” investigative journalist Sam Cooper told Iran International, pointing to investigations linking criminal actors across North and South America.

Cooper who has reported extensively on transnational crime networks, stressed that the overlap does not necessarily indicate direct operational control by Tehran but reflects a convergence of interests that could benefit the theocracy during periods of heightened pressure.

“I don’t have direct evidence their intelligence would be involved in helping the cartel push back against the Mexican state,” he said. “But I do believe the Iranian regime would want to benefit very much from increasing the turmoil in Mexico.”

That convergence of illicit finance and geopolitical competition, analysts say, creates openings for states such as Iran to benefit from regional instability.

'Using gangs for dirty work'

Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies focusing on Iranian domestic affairs and regional influence, says the Islamic Republic frequently advances its objectives indirectly, relying on criminal intermediaries to apply pressure while maintaining distance from direct involvement.

“They (Iran's regime) do try to put a distance between themselves and their criminal activity, specifically assassination plots,” Sayeh said.

“They increasingly are leveraging some of these gangs… to do the dirty work.”

In 2011, US officials brought charges against several Iranian nationals, among them an operative linked to the IRGC’s Quds Force, accusing them of conspiring to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

According to prosecutors, an Iranian go-between attempted to recruit individuals he thought were tied to a Mexican drug cartel, offering payment to carry out the assassination. Those individuals were in fact informants working with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Networks built over decades

Analysts say many of these connections trace back decades, particularly through Iran’s partnership with the former regime ruling Venezuela, where Iranian Revolutionary Guard-aligned networks and Hezbollah operatives established financial and logistical footholds across Latin America.

Hezbollah has long been accused of running criminal networks in Latin America that intersect with drug trafficking routes.

Dr. Walid Phares, a foreign policy expert and co-secretary general of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group, said those networks gradually expanded into cooperation with organized crime groups operating across the region.

“Hezbollah had developed relationships with similar organizations across Latin America, Brazil, Colombia and beyond,” Phares told Iran International. “But the most important move backed by the IRGC regime was in Mexico.”

According to Phares, access to trafficking routes and financial channels allowed militant networks to expand their reach while maintaining distance through criminal intermediaries.

“The most important goal of Hezbollah was to get to the American and Mexican border,” he said.

Sayeh added that Western governments often mischaracterize the threat by treating such activity solely as organized crime rather than part of a broader national security challenge.

“A lot of times when it comes to the Americas it is treated as a criminal network, not a terrorism network,” he said. “Accurately labeling it for what it is important.”

For Iran, "it’s anything anti-America… and cartel is just part of that paradigm for them,” he said. “Any opportunity just to exert pressure on the Americas.”

Crime and geopolitics converge

Security specialists say the convergence has blurred the traditional boundary between criminal activity and geopolitical competition. Networks originally built for sanctions evasion and terror financing can also serve narcotics trafficking and money laundering operations, creating mutually beneficial partnerships between state and non-state actors.

For Cooper, the violence unfolding in Mexico reflects a wider shift in the Western Hemisphere, where criminal networks increasingly intersect with global rivalries.

“The level of threats that are emerging in the Western Hemisphere right now,” he said, “is all related.”

As Mexico contains the fallout from El Mencho’s death, experts say the episode highlights how criminal violence in the Western Hemisphere increasingly intersects with global power competition.