Donald Trump has indicated that the United States could resume military strikes against Iran if tensions escalate again, even as he reviews a newly proposed diplomatic framework sent by Tehran. While acknowledging that a deal is under consideration, he made it clear that military options remain active and have not been ruled out.
The proposal under review reportedly includes reopening maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, easing restrictions on Iranian trade by lifting the US blockade, and postponing detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme to a later phase. This approach is intended to first stabilise economic and security conditions before addressing more complex strategic disagreements.
Despite recognising the structure of the proposal, Trump expressed strong reservations about its viability. In remarks shared on his social platform, he suggested that Iran had not faced sufficient consequences for its past actions and implied that the terms being offered fall short of what Washington considers acceptable. His response reflects a broader insistence that any agreement must firmly guarantee that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons.
At the same time, Trump signalled a dual-track approach, keeping both diplomacy and escalation in play. He stated that while he would prefer to avoid military action on humanitarian grounds, the possibility of renewed strikes remains real if Iran takes steps that the US interprets as hostile or non-compliant.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, have maintained that they remain open to continued negotiations, provided the United States adjusts its stance and reduces pressure tactics. This ongoing exchange highlights a persistent gap between the two sides, with Washington demanding immediate and binding nuclear assurances, while Tehran is seeking a phased resolution that begins with sanctions relief and security guarantees.
The situation remains unresolved following a ceasefire that paused active combat after weeks of conflict that disrupted global energy markets and heightened geopolitical instability. With both sides holding firm to their core conditions, the path forward continues to balance between fragile diplomacy and the risk of renewed confrontation.
