As U.S. and Iranian officials prepare for another round of diplomacy, uncertainty continues to cloud Washington’s true intentions. Trump’s goals on Iran remain uncertain ahead of the talks, sources say, even among senior officials tasked with executing policy.
According to multiple U.S. officials, there is still no firm direction on what Donald Trump ultimately wants to achieve if tensions with Iran escalate into military action. While the president has repeatedly signaled that force remains an option, aides acknowledge that his precise objectives—whether limited strikes, deterrence, or something more sweeping—have not been clearly defined.
No Consensus on Military Objectives
Inside the administration, discussions continue without a shared roadmap. Officials say Trump has not settled on whether potential military action would aim to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, weaken its leadership, or pursue the far more consequential goal of regime change. The lack of clarity has made it difficult for policymakers to plan for what might come after any confrontation.
That ambiguity has been amplified by Trump’s own public remarks. In a recent interview, he warned that Iran’s supreme leader should be “very worried,” suggesting a readiness to escalate. He also claimed that U.S. intelligence uncovered Iranian efforts to rebuild parts of its nuclear program after American strikes destroyed three facilities earlier this year.
Diplomacy and Deterrence Running in Parallel
Even as Trump keeps military pressure on the table, diplomatic efforts are moving forward. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized that any negotiations must go beyond Iran’s nuclear program. Washington, he says, wants limits on ballistic missiles, an end to support for regional proxies, and improvements in Iran’s human rights record.
Rubio has been candid about the challenges. He has openly questioned whether a durable agreement is achievable but insists there is value in testing the possibility. The talks, scheduled to take place in Oman, are being framed as an attempt to avoid another armed clash rather than a guarantee of reconciliation.
Iran Pushes Back on Broader Demands
Iranian leaders have remained firm in rejecting any talks that extend beyond nuclear issues. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that discussions would be held in Muscat but made no mention of missile limits or regional activities—key priorities for Washington.
This gap highlights the central tension at the heart of the negotiations: the U.S. is seeking a comprehensive reset of Iranian behavior, while Tehran appears willing to discuss only its nuclear file.
Military Assets as Leverage
While diplomacy unfolds, the U.S. military continues to build a formidable presence in the region. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its strike group are moving closer to positions from which they could support operations near Iran. Additional fighter jets, air defense systems, and naval assets have also been deployed.
Officials insist these moves are defensive and intended to deter aggression. Still, the scale of the buildup underscores how seriously the administration is preparing for the possibility that talks could fail.
Allies Urge Caution
Regional partners have quietly urged restraint. Gulf states, along with Israel, have reportedly warned that military action could destabilize the region further. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long advocated tougher measures against Iran, but even close allies are wary of a broader conflict.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, has made clear it would not allow its airspace or bases to be used for an attack, reflecting broader unease about escalation.
A Strategy Still in Flux
Trump’s approach to Iran has shifted repeatedly—from maximum pressure to threats of force, then back to negotiations. His withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal continues to shape the current standoff, as does his insistence that recent U.S. strikes significantly set back Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Yet the fundamental question remains unanswered: what outcome would justify the risks of military action if diplomacy collapses?
For now, the administration appears to be using the threat of force as leverage rather than a settled plan. As talks begin in Muscat, both allies and adversaries are watching closely—not just for what is said at the negotiating table, but for signs that Washington itself has decided what it truly wants from Iran.
