Trump Warns of Iran Strikes as Nuclear Deal Talks Progress

Geneva, Switzerland – The United States and Iran are navigating a precarious path between renewed nuclear negotiations and the looming threat of military confrontation, with President Donald Trump suggesting limited strikes against Iran remain a possibility even as Tehran anticipates presenting a draft nuclear agreement within days.

Speaking on Friday, February 20th, Trump indicated he was “considering” limited military action against Iran as a backdrop to ongoing diplomatic efforts. Hours later, he issued a more direct message, stating Iran “better negotiate a fair deal.” This rhetoric comes as the two countries attempt to break a years-long deadlock in talks aimed at reviving a nuclear agreement, following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in a television interview, stated that Iran is finalizing a draft proposal to be sent to Washington “in the next two to three days.” “I don’t think it takes long, perhaps, in a matter of a week or so, we can start real, serious negotiations on the text and come to a conclusion,” Araghchi said on MSNOW’s “Morning Joe” show. This suggests a willingness to engage substantively, despite the escalating tensions.

The current situation is characterized by a significant US military buildup in the Middle East, with a substantial naval presence and additional forces deployed to the region. Both Washington and Tehran have signaled a preparedness for war should negotiations collapse, creating a volatile environment. “We are prepared for diplomacy, and we are prepared for negotiation as much as we are prepared for war,” Araghchi affirmed.

The negotiations, mediated by Oman, have been taking place in multiple locations, including Muscat, Rome, and Geneva. The current round of talks, which began on February 6th, represents a continuation of efforts initiated in April 2025. Key figures involved include US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, US President advisor Jared Kushner, and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper on the American side, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi, and Supreme National Security Council member Ali Larijani representing Iran.

According to Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, Iran “would treat any kinetic action as an existential threat.” Vaez suggests Iranian leaders are not bluffing when they warn of retaliation, and believe they could withstand US airstrikes while maintaining control.

Trump’s comments follow a pattern of assertive rhetoric towards Iran, including a previous warning that “bad things will happen” if a deal is not reached. The President reportedly set a two-month deadline for an agreement last year, which passed without a resolution. Following that, Israel reportedly launched an attack on Iran, escalating tensions significantly.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, countered Araghchi’s claim that the US is not seeking zero enrichment of uranium, stating that Trump has been clear that Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons or the capability to develop them. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental point of contention in the negotiations.

Tehran maintains its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, a claim disputed by the US and other international powers. Iran has also insisted that any negotiations should focus exclusively on its nuclear program, rejecting demands to address its ballistic missile program or its ties to regional armed groups.

The possibility of military action has drawn criticism from some US lawmakers. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has introduced a war powers resolution requiring congressional approval before any strike, a move intended to force a public debate and accountability. While such resolutions have historically faced challenges, they reflect growing concern among senators regarding Trump’s foreign policy decisions.

The stakes are exceptionally high. A failure to reach a diplomatic resolution could trigger a wider conflict in the Middle East, with potentially devastating consequences for regional stability and global energy markets. The current negotiations represent a critical juncture in US-Iran relations, and the coming days will likely determine whether a path to de-escalation can be found.

The negotiations are taking place against a backdrop of ongoing Iranian protests and a financial crisis within Iran, adding further complexity to the situation. The Red Sea crisis also continues to contribute to regional instability.