Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
Senior American officials are signaling that the prospects of reaching a comprehensive agreement with Iran that satisfies President Donald Trump’s demands are diminishing, even as the White House stops short of issuing a formal order for military action.
According to sources, U.S. forces have not yet received a finalized list of targets for potential strikes against Iran, an indication that President Donald Trump has not made a definitive decision to launch a specific operation. However, officials familiar with internal deliberations told the network that confidence in securing a deal aligned with all of Trump’s conditions is fading.
The debate inside Washington intensified after reporting by The Wall Street Journal indicated that Trump is considering a limited initial strike designed to pressure Tehran into accepting an agreement. The newspaper said potential U.S. action could target military and government facilities, and warned that a broader campaign might follow if Iran refuses to halt uranium enrichment.
The president has publicly given Tehran what he described as a final window of 10 to 15 days to reach an understanding. “We’ll get a deal one way or another,” Trump said, adding that “bad things” would happen if Iran failed to respond positively. While he stressed that diplomacy remains on the table, he made clear it would not remain open indefinitely.
The escalating rhetoric comes against the backdrop of ongoing indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva, where European intermediaries have sought to keep negotiations alive. Yet even as diplomatic channels remain active, the United States has reportedly reinforced its military posture in the Middle East, moving additional aircraft and assets into the region.
Iran has responded with a sharply worded letter to the United Nations, warning that Washington’s statements point to a “real risk” of military aggression. In correspondence addressed to Secretary-General António Guterres and the Security Council, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, described Trump’s recent remarks as a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
The letter specifically referenced the possibility of the United States using the strategic island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to launch an attack. Iranian officials argued that such threats cannot be dismissed as rhetorical bluster, particularly given what they described as ongoing U.S. military deployments in and around the region.
Tehran insisted that it does not seek war and will not initiate hostilities. However, it warned that any military aggression would be met with a “decisive and proportionate” response under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms the right to self-defense. In such a scenario, Iran said, all bases and assets of the “hostile force” in the region would be considered legitimate targets.
The warning, carried by Iran’s official news outlets and reported by Reuters, underscores the fragility of the current moment. Iranian officials emphasized that they are participating in nuclear talks “constructively and in good faith,” seeking the removal of what they describe as unlawful and inhumane unilateral sanctions. They also reiterated that their nuclear program is peaceful and that any resolution must respect the rights of signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The standoff reflects deeper structural tensions that have defined U.S.-Iran relations for decades. The collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and the subsequent reimposition of U.S. sanctions dramatically reshaped the diplomatic landscape. Since then, intermittent negotiations have alternated with periods of escalation, including proxy confrontations and targeted strikes across the region.
Military analysts note that even a limited U.S. strike could trigger a wider cycle of retaliation. Iran maintains a network of allied armed groups across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, and has demonstrated its ability to strike regional targets directly, including with ballistic missiles and drones. U.S. bases and allied infrastructure throughout the Gulf would likely be placed on heightened alert in the event of hostilities.
At the same time, many observers argue that both sides retain strong incentives to avoid full-scale war. For Washington, a prolonged conflict could strain regional alliances and global energy markets. For Tehran, direct confrontation with the United States carries significant military and economic risks at a time of domestic economic pressure.
As the self-imposed deadline approaches, the key question is whether the current brinkmanship is designed to extract concessions at the negotiating table or signals a genuine shift toward military confrontation. For now, the absence of a formal target list suggests that the final decision has yet to be made. But with rhetoric hardening and forces repositioning, the margin for miscalculation appears to be narrowing.
