Donald Trump Signals He Is Leaning Toward Targeted Iran Strikes as Nuclear Deal Deadline Approaches in Washington and Across the Middle East

Tension is building again between Washington and Tehran, and this time the timeline is measured in days, not months.

Donald Trump is reportedly reviewing multiple military options against Iran as nuclear negotiations remain stuck.

The message coming out of his circle is clear: patience is wearing thin, and a decision could come very soon.

Sources familiar with internal discussions say Trump appears to favor a narrower approach rather than launching a full-scale war.

Instead of an all-out assault, he is said to be leaning toward targeted strikes focused specifically on Iranian military and government sites.

The idea behind that strategy is straightforward — apply enough pressure to force movement at the negotiating table without igniting a regional firestorm.

The 10-Day Warning That Shifted the Tone

At the inaugural meeting of his newly formed Board of Peace, Trump publicly raised the stakes.

He warned that if Iran does not agree to what he considers a meaningful nuclear deal within ten days, the United States could respond militarily.

The statement was both a negotiation tactic and a blunt warning.

Trump framed the situation as a choice between diplomacy and consequences.

He suggested that a deal remains possible but emphasized that “bad things” could happen if talks continue to stall.

While he insisted that “good talks are being had,” the ultimatum suggests that goodwill alone may no longer be enough.

Regional officials have cautioned that even limited strikes could push Iranian negotiators away from the table for a significant period.

Historically, Tehran has responded to military pressure by hardening its position rather than softening it.

That risk is part of the calculation now unfolding inside the Oval Office.

Echoes of Past Military Action

This is not the first time Trump has confronted Iran with force.

Earlier in his presidency, he authorized Operation Midnight Hammer, a coordinated strike carried out by U.S. Air Force and Navy assets against three Iranian nuclear facilities.

That move followed weeks of stalled talks and a set decision window issued by the White House.

The precedent shows that Trump is willing to move quickly from diplomacy to direct action if he believes negotiations are failing.

Any new campaign, according to reports, would likely focus on nuclear facilities, ballistic missile infrastructure and key military installations.

The initial phase would reportedly stop short of targeting top political leadership, though escalation remains a possibility if the first step fails.

A Military Buildup That Speaks Volumes

While speeches about peace dominate headlines, the Pentagon’s posture tells another story.

The United States has significantly increased its air and naval presence in the Middle East.

Aircraft carriers, fighter jets, submarines and additional support assets have been repositioned to ensure readiness.

Such deployments are rarely symbolic.

They are meant to give decision-makers options that can be executed immediately.

Iran, meanwhile, has requested additional time following negotiations in Geneva that produced little breakthrough.

That delay appears to have intensified pressure from Washington.

The Board of Peace and the Optics of Power

The looming Iran decision unfolded during Trump’s launch of a new diplomatic initiative.

At the first meeting of his Board of Peace, he stood alongside Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, senior adviser Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

Trump portrayed himself as a leader committed to ending wars rather than starting them.

He argued that peace is far less costly than conflict and dismissed any interest in winning awards, insisting his focus is on saving lives.

The remarks were widely interpreted as a response to criticism that he had been overlooked for major international peace honors.

Yet the juxtaposition was striking.

As nearly fifty world leaders participated in person or virtually, reports circulated that U.S. strikes on Iran could happen as soon as the weekend.

The language of diplomacy stood alongside the machinery of potential war.

The Broader Context Behind the Standoff

The roots of this confrontation stretch back years.

Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear agreement during his earlier term, arguing it did not permanently block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons capability.

Since then, Iran has increased uranium enrichment levels beyond the original deal’s limits, raising alarms in Washington and among European allies.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful energy development.

Western intelligence agencies remain skeptical.

Analysts also point out that even successful airstrikes could damage facilities but cannot erase the technical knowledge Iranian scientists have already acquired.

Complicating matters further is Iran’s regional network of allied groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Any military confrontation risks spillover effects beyond Iranian territory.

What’s Next?

The next ten days are pivotal.

If Iran signals flexibility and offers concessions, negotiations could resume momentum.

If talks remain frozen, targeted strikes may become reality.

And if initial strikes fail to alter Tehran’s stance, escalation could follow.

Energy markets, regional alliances and global security calculations are all watching closely.

A limited strike might be designed as a pressure tactic, but history shows that limited conflicts can evolve quickly.

Summary

Donald Trump is reviewing military options against Iran as nuclear negotiations stall, signaling a preference for limited, targeted strikes rather than full-scale war.

A public ten-day ultimatum has heightened tensions, while U.S. military assets continue building up in the Middle East.

Even as Trump promotes peace through his Board of Peace initiative, the possibility of imminent action remains on the table.

The coming days will determine whether diplomacy regains traction or whether the region edges closer to confrontation.