In a move that could reshape U.S.-Iran relations and tilt the balance of power in the Middle East, President Donald Trump has delivered a stark ultimatum to Iran: make meaningful progress on nuclear negotiations within 60 days or face potential military consequences.
The warning, first reported by Politico, was delivered in a letter directly addressed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The letter outlines U.S. expectations for a new round of talks set to begin this weekend in Oman—talks that may represent the last serious opportunity to resolve the standoff peacefully. Sources say the Trump administration is signaling both its openness to diplomacy and its readiness to act militarily if talks fail.
This diplomatic opening comes after months of escalating tensions. Following Trump’s return to office in January, Washington reimposed maximum pressure policies on Tehran, including sanctions that have battered Iran’s already fragile economy. Meanwhile, the region has witnessed heightened conflict, with Israeli strikes hitting Iranian positions in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, further isolating Tehran.
In this volatile climate, the decision to send Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for Middle East affairs, to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman marks a dramatic shift. It’s the first high-level contact between the two governments since Trump’s re-election, and it signals that Washington is now willing to test the diplomatic channel—though on its own terms.
Witkoff told The Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is prepared to consider an interim agreement, provided Iran freezes its nuclear activities and agrees to intrusive inspections. “Where our red line will be,” he said, “there can’t be weaponization of your nuclear capability.”
That red line is non-negotiable, officials say. But what remains ambiguous is what counts as “progress.” A freeze on enrichment? An extension of breakout time? A declaration of undeclared sites? As with many Trump-era policies, the criteria seem flexible—until they’re not.
For Tehran, the timing of this opening could be both opportune and risky. The Iranian leadership is under pressure from all sides. Internally, the economy is in crisis, with inflation soaring above 50%, unemployment rising, and public trust in the regime eroding. Externally, it faces Israeli military pressure, U.S. sanctions, and an increasingly skeptical Europe.
Despite this, some in Washington warn that Iran might not be coming to Oman in good faith. Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence officer now at the Atlantic Council, says Iran could use the talks to buy time while quietly continuing to advance its nuclear program.
“This is about intentionally wasting time,” Panikoff said. “They’ll look cooperative, but they’ll keep spinning centrifuges and re-establish diplomatic cover with European partners. Then in six months, they’ll be closer to a bomb and harder to isolate.”
Others disagree. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argues that Iran is looking for a dignified off-ramp. “Iran doesn’t want war with the U.S. or Israel,” he said. “They want sanctions relief and to restore some economic normalcy. But they won’t capitulate. The talks in Oman could be a breakthrough—if the U.S. shows it’s not just there to dictate terms.”
If the Biden years were characterized by cautious engagement and multilateralism, Trump’s return has meant a return to pressure-first diplomacy. But this time, there’s skepticism even among some of Trump’s traditional allies.
Israeli officials, while supportive of a hard line on Iran, are increasingly concerned that Trump may settle for a weak deal to score a political win ahead of U.S. elections. Jacob Nagel, former Israeli National Security Council chief, warned of what he sees as a “Nobel Prize strategy.”
“Trump wants to check the diplomacy box, claim victory, and move on,” Nagel told Politico. “But we need to be careful. A bad deal now is worse than no deal.”
That sentiment is echoed on Capitol Hill. Several Republican lawmakers have privately raised concerns that the administration might accept a symbolic agreement that lacks serious enforcement mechanisms.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a longtime Iran hawk, said in a statement, “Iran has lied about its nuclear program for decades. They’ll lie again. Any agreement must include real-time inspections, full transparency, and automatic sanctions snapback.”
Oman, a quiet but influential Gulf state, has once again emerged as a key diplomatic bridge. It played a similar role in 2013, hosting secret backchannel talks that led to the original 2015 nuclear deal. Today, its neutrality and stable leadership make it a rare safe space for diplomacy.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi is reportedly acting as a facilitator between the two sides. According to a source familiar with the discussions, Oman is pushing both parties to agree on a temporary freeze of Iran’s enrichment above 20% and a moratorium on new centrifuge installations in exchange for limited sanctions relief.
While far short of a comprehensive deal, such an agreement could buy time—and lower the temperature.
What makes this round of talks particularly tense is the 60-day clock now hanging over the proceedings. This is not a vague timeline. According to the Politico report, the letter from Trump spells out that if Iran does not take “verifiable and irreversible steps” toward compliance within two months, the U.S. will “consider all available options”—language widely interpreted as a threat of military action.
That framing, say experts, is both a bluff and a promise. “Trump is serious about not letting Iran go nuclear,” said Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “But he also wants to avoid a regional war. This ultimatum is meant to push them to the table, not start a war—but if they call his bluff, things could get ugly.”
For Iran, the choice is now stark: negotiate under pressure or risk a confrontation with a U.S. administration that has shown both unpredictability and a willingness to use force.
The talks in Oman may not produce a sweeping resolution. But they could determine whether diplomacy has any future in the U.S.-Iran relationship—or if the two countries are on a slow march toward confrontation. The stakes are immense: regional stability, nuclear non-proliferation, global energy markets, and the strategic credibility of the United States.
