President Donald Trump said a potential deal with Iran is not yet fully negotiated and warned that a rushed agreement could lead back to war.
This stance comes as the administration balances the possibility of a diplomatic resolution against the risk of a flawed agreement that fails to secure U.S. interests. The tension between these options defines the current trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in the region.
Speaking on Sunday, Trump pushed back against critics of the ongoing negotiations. He said the U.S. must avoid a "really bad deal," noting that time is on the side of the U.S. [1]. The president said that while a diplomatic end to the conflict is possible, he remains open to alternative paths if negotiations fail.
"I think it's got a very good chance of ending, and if it doesn't end, we have to go back to bombing the hell out of them," Trump said in an interview with PBS NewsHour [2].
Despite the optimism regarding a potential end to the conflict, Trump has expressed skepticism about the Iranian leadership. He said it might be best not to make a deal with Iran's leadership at all [3]. This suggests a fluid strategy where the administration is weighing the benefits of a formal treaty against the risks of legitimizing the current government in Tehran.
Meanwhile, officials in Tehran said that no nuclear deal has been agreed upon yet [1]. However, Iranian sources indicate that talks regarding uranium are planned to take place within 30 to 60 days [1].
Trump said the U.S. should not feel pressured to finalize terms quickly. He said the administration is focused on getting the deal right rather than getting it done fast, a strategy intended to prevent the reignition of active conflict [1, 3].
“"I think it's got a very good chance of ending, and if it doesn't end, we have to go back to bombing the hell out of them."”
The administration is employing a 'maximum pressure' diplomatic strategy, utilizing the threat of military escalation as leverage to ensure any final agreement is favorable to the U.S. By publicly oscillating between the possibility of a deal and the necessity of conflict, the White House seeks to maintain strategic ambiguity and avoid the perception of desperation in negotiations.
