·
·
World
US President Trump rejected Iran's response to his proposal, while Israeli PM Netanyahu and Senator Graham call for military action against Iran's nuclear program.
In a single day, the crisis between the United States and Iran escalated dangerously, exposing the fragility of the current truce. President Donald Trump rejected Iran's response to his proposal, Tehran declared it is "not working to appease Trump," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further inflamed tensions with his own remarks.
Trump told Axios that he discussed the Iranian response with Netanyahu in a phone call he described as "very nice," stressing that the negotiation file with Iran is "my own business" and not for any other party. An informed Iranian source speaking to the Tasnim news agency suggested that Trump's displeasure with the Iranian proposal "is often an indicator that it is good," adding that "Trump's reaction does not matter; no one in Iran is drafting a plan to please the American president."
In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," Netanyahu stated that the war with Iran is not over, arguing that any solution must include the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear facilities. He added that highly enriched materials must be removed from Iran, even if it requires direct intervention.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham joined this push, explicitly urging Trump to consider a military option against Iran. He asserted that any agreement that does not lead to the total destruction of Iran's enrichment capabilities is "meaningless" and would simply be a new nuclear deal.
This clear divergence in positions reflects the depth of the crisis. The US and Israel demand substantial and permanent concessions on Iran's nuclear program, while Tehran maintains a firm stance, refusing to bow to pressure and insisting it will not make concessions under threat.
Observers note that the gap between the two sides remains wide, particularly regarding the future of nuclear facilities and enrichment levels. The crisis with Iran is entering a critical and dangerous phase: if Tehran continues to refuse real nuclear concessions, the region could see a swift return to intense military pressure, especially with influential voices within the US administration and the Republican party pushing for comprehensive military strikes as a last resort. According to experts, this could lead to targeting sensitive sites or imposing even harsher economic sanctions.
However, the possibility of continued indirect negotiation remains, though it would be conducted under heavy pressure and intermittently, with a constant risk of the fragile truce collapsing at any moment due to the nuclear dispute. A scenario of prolonged negotiation is considered one of the likely options for several strategic, economic, and political reasons. Both Washington and Tehran have strong reasons to avoid a full-scale war at present, but they are simultaneously unwilling to make quick, substantial concessions.
On the American side, Trump prefers a "maximum pressure with an open door" approach, which worked for him partially during his first term. He does not want a costly war that could sharply raise oil prices and impact the US economy. Experts say Trump will likely continue the policy of threatening military force as a means of pressure while managing long, indirect negotiations through mediators such as Oman, Qatar, or Pakistan. The primary US goal is to reach an agreement far stronger than the previous nuclear deal, including strict limits on enrichment, permanent monitoring, and the partial or complete dismantling of some facilities.
On the Iranian side, Tehran is suffering from a crippling economic crisis due to sanctions. At the same time, the Iranian system cannot make major concessions for fear of being popularly accused of submitting to American pressure. Therefore, according to observers, Tehran is adopting a strategy of "strategic procrastination," offering formal or partial concessions, demanding the lifting of sanctions first, and exploiting any differences between Washington and Tel Aviv or even within the US administration.
Amid these developments, experts say the ball is now in Tehran's court: either make substantial concessions or face a new round of escalation that could be harsher than before. The coming hours are expected to be decisive in determining whether the current truce is a prelude to a fragile peace, or merely a brief respite before tensions explode once more.
