Trump Issues Ultimatum for Iran Deal in 10 Days
President Donald Trump said the United States is seeking a “meaningful deal” with Iran, pointing to what he described as productive diplomatic contacts even as he warned Tehran it has 10 days to two weeks to reach an agreement or face possible military action. The remarks, delivered as his administration reaffirmed a national emergency on Iran, come amid a deep stalemate over Tehran’s refusal to abandon its uranium enrichment program.
The renewed push for a deal underscores a central tension in Washington’s approach: combining diplomacy with overt military pressure. While Mr. Trump has said he prefers a peaceful resolution and believes the two sides were “very close” to an agreement, Iranian leaders have rejected key American demands as unacceptable.
Deadline Diplomacy Returns
On February 20, 2026, Mr. Trump imposed a fresh ultimatum, giving Iranian authorities a brief window to strike a deal. The deadline follows an earlier two-month timeline set in early 2025 that expired without progress.
“Iran was becoming ‘much more aggressive’ in the negotiations,” Mr. Trump said in a previous interview, signaling frustration with the pace and tone of talks.
The core American demand remains unchanged: Iran must abandon uranium enrichment, a capability Washington argues could shorten Tehran’s path to developing a nuclear weapon. Tehran insists enrichment is its sovereign right under international law.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, rejected the U.S. proposal last year, calling the demand to halt enrichment “excessive and outrageous.” On February 17, he declined to accept the conditions outlined by Mr. Trump and said the president would not be capable of toppling the Islamic Republic. He also warned that the “United States Navy can be sunk,” a remark that heightened tensions during an already delicate period.
Military Pressure in the Background
The diplomatic showdown unfolds under the shadow of Operation Midnight Hammer, a June 2025 U.S. military campaign that severely disrupted Iran’s nuclear facilities. Administration officials have argued the strikes significantly set back Tehran’s enrichment capacity, even if they did not eliminate it entirely.
According to post-strike assessments, major Iranian enrichment sites are currently idle, though Iran retains substantial quantities of enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been referenced as a potential inspector should a new agreement take shape, though no framework has been publicly agreed.
In recent weeks, Mr. Trump bolstered the pressure campaign by deploying what he described as a “massive armada” to the Middle East. The move appears designed to strengthen Washington’s negotiating leverage while signaling readiness for escalation.
Iran’s Defense Minister, Aziz Nasirzadeh, responded with a direct warning: if negotiations collapse and conflict erupts, Iran will target American bases in the region. “All U.S. bases in nearby countries are within reach,” he said.
Executive Order and Economic Squeeze
Alongside the military posture, Mr. Trump signed an Executive Order on February 20 reaffirming the U.S. national emergency with respect to Iran. The order establishes a tariff system allowing Washington to impose additional duties on imports from any country that directly or indirectly acquires goods or services from Iran.
The administration has reiterated its goal of reducing Iran’s oil exports to zero. Such a move could reverberate across global energy markets, particularly if tensions disrupt shipping lanes or tighten supply. At the same time, Iranian oil officials have signaled potential openness to selling oil to the United States under a new nuclear peace deal, suggesting economic incentives remain part of Tehran’s calculus.
Critics Warn of Escalation
Not all analysts support the administration’s strategy. The Arms Control Association has cautioned against further military action, arguing that additional strikes would undermine diplomacy and complicate efforts to secure international inspections.
“Another U.S. aerial military strike on Iran … would not advance the goal of blocking Iran’s potential pathways to acquire nuclear weapons,” the organization said. It warned that military action would derail negotiations aimed at verifiably accounting for Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium and strengthen hardline elements within Iran.
The group also noted that under U.S. law, sustained military action would require Congressional authorization, invoking the War Powers framework.
Fundamental Divide Over Enrichment
At the heart of the impasse lies a non-negotiable principle for each side. For Washington, allowing enrichment risks eroding the credibility of nonproliferation efforts. For Tehran, relinquishing enrichment would represent a surrender of sovereignty and technological progress.
The dispute resembles two trains facing each other on a single track: both leaders say they want to avoid collision, yet neither has shown willingness to change direction.
Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the previous nuclear agreement during his first term and reinstated a “maximum pressure” sanctions regime. He has argued that intensified pressure, including last year’s strikes, has strengthened America’s bargaining position.
Iranian leaders, however, frame the U.S. approach as coercion dressed as diplomacy. Mr. Khamenei has accused Mr. Trump of lying about seeking peace and declared him unworthy of a response, while reiterating hardline rhetoric against Israel.
A Narrow Window
With the new 10-day to two-week deadline ticking, both governments publicly maintain that they prefer a peaceful outcome. Yet the sharp exchange of warnings suggests the margin for error is thin.
Whether the coming days produce a breakthrough or deepen the standoff may depend on whether either side softens its red lines. For now, Washington and Tehran remain locked in a high-stakes test of resolve — one in which the cost of miscalculation could extend far beyond the negotiating table.
