Trump Considering Limited Strikes to Force Iran to Make Nuclear Deal – Report

Tensions between Washington and Tehran appear to be entering a new and potentially dangerous phase. According to recent reports, former U.S. President Donald Trump is considering limited military strikes against Iran as leverage to push the country into accepting a new nuclear agreement. While no final decision has been announced, the possibility alone has reignited fears of escalation across the Middle East.

A Strategy of “Maximum Pressure” — With Military Force

Sources familiar with internal discussions suggest that Trump is weighing targeted, short-term military action designed to pressure Iran’s leadership without triggering a full-scale war. The idea reportedly centers on limited strikes against specific military or strategic facilities — a calculated move meant to demonstrate resolve while avoiding a prolonged campaign.

This approach echoes the broader “maximum pressure” strategy that defined U.S. policy toward Iran during Trump’s presidency. The difference now? The pressure may extend beyond sanctions and diplomatic isolation into direct military action.

Trump has reportedly warned that Iran has a narrow window — around 10 to 15 days — to show meaningful progress toward a deal. If negotiations stall, “bad things” could follow, according to individuals familiar with his stance.

Military Buildup Raises Stakes

The discussions come amid reports of an increased U.S. military presence in the region. Additional naval assets, aircraft, and support systems have been deployed, giving Washington the operational capability to act quickly if ordered.

While U.S. officials have not publicly confirmed specific strike plans, the presence of enhanced forces sends a clear signal: military options are on the table.

For Iran, such deployments are not just symbolic. They alter the strategic balance and raise concerns about potential miscalculation — where even a limited strike could spiral into broader confrontation.

Iran’s Nuclear Program at the Center

At the heart of the standoff lies Iran’s nuclear program and the fate of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The 2015 agreement imposed strict limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, after the U.S. withdrew from the deal in 2018, tensions steadily escalated.

Since then, Iran has expanded aspects of its nuclear program beyond JCPOA limits, while insisting its activities remain for peaceful purposes. Western officials, however, warn that Tehran is edging closer to weapons-grade enrichment capabilities.

The collapse of trust between both sides has made renewed negotiations deeply complex. Each round of talks appears fragile, with both sides accusing the other of bad faith or shifting demands.

Diplomatic Channels Still Open — For Now

Despite the rhetoric and military signaling, diplomacy has not entirely broken down. Iranian officials have indicated that draft proposals are still under discussion, and international mediators continue to urge restraint.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, has warned that time is limited to secure a workable framework before oversight mechanisms weaken further. According to Grossi, without clear agreements and inspections, transparency over Iran’s nuclear activities becomes increasingly difficult.

Iran, for its part, maintains that it will not negotiate under threats. Officials in Tehran have publicly stated that any military strike would be met with a “decisive” response — raising the specter of retaliation against U.S. bases or allied interests in the region.

Risks of Limited Strikes

Proponents of limited military action argue that a carefully calibrated strike could compel Iran back to serious negotiations without triggering all-out war. The logic is simple: demonstrate capability and resolve, then reopen talks from a position of strength.

Critics, however, warn that such a strategy is inherently risky.

History shows that even “limited” strikes can have unpredictable consequences. Iran has a network of regional allies and proxy forces across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Any retaliation might not be direct — but indirect responses could widen the conflict dramatically.

There’s also the diplomatic risk. Military action could harden Iran’s negotiating position rather than soften it, reinforcing domestic narratives of resistance against foreign pressure.

International Reaction

Allies in Europe and elsewhere are watching closely. Many governments remain wary of another Middle Eastern conflict, particularly at a time of global economic uncertainty and ongoing regional instability.

Some Western leaders are reportedly reluctant to provide operational support for potential strikes, emphasizing instead the importance of diplomatic solutions. Global energy markets are also sensitive to developments in the Gulf, meaning any escalation could ripple far beyond the immediate region.

Russia and China, both of whom maintain relationships with Tehran, have urged restraint and dialogue — framing military escalation as destabilizing for global security.

A High-Stakes Moment

The coming days could prove pivotal. If negotiations yield a breakthrough, the crisis may ease — at least temporarily. If talks falter and military action is authorized, the Middle East could face another volatile chapter.

For Trump, the decision involves balancing deterrence, diplomacy, and domestic political considerations. For Iran, it is about sovereignty, security, and strategic leverage.

What remains clear is this: even limited strikes would represent a dramatic escalation with potentially far-reaching consequences.

In geopolitics, actions rarely remain contained within their intended boundaries. Whether this moment becomes a turning point toward renewed diplomacy or the opening act of deeper conflict depends largely on decisions made behind closed doors in Washington and Tehran.

For now, the world watches — aware that in matters of nuclear diplomacy and military force, the margin for error is dangerously thin.