President Donald Trump announced Monday that newly planned talks with Tehran represent the "last chance" for Iran to forge a deal and avoid escalation of U.S. military strikes. The negotiations, expected to begin within days, will focus first on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and then addressing Iran's nuclear program.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump outlined a two-phase approach. "The first phase is the opening of the straits. The second phase will be the denuclearization," he said, adding that the latter "will take a little while." The president's comments came after he announced Saturday night via Truth Social that the U.S. would hold off on launching new attacks against Iran.
Military Pressure and Diplomatic Opening
In his Saturday post, Trump wrote that "The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II." However, he agreed to cancel planned attacks after Iran and other Middle Eastern countries requested a pause, citing agreement on deal perimeters. The proposed agreement would include "the Immediate, Complete, and Total OPENING OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT, and an end to Iran's nuclear threat," Trump wrote.
Trump emphasized he agreed to cancel the attack "for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran," but made clear the decision is "subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL." He added that "The Country of Israel joins me in this commitment."
White House spokesman Davis Ingle defended the president's approach in a statement to Fox News Digital. "What matters most to the American people is having a Commander-in-Chief who takes decisive action to eliminate threats and keep them safe, which is exactly what President Trump is doing," Ingle said. He noted Trump "campaigned proudly on his promise to deny the Iranian regime the ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and Americans are already safer because of his bold leadership."
Competing Views on Strategy
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent praised Trump's decision to call off strikes, writing "this is a good decision." Kent argued it's clear Trump "wants out of this war, for all the obvious reasons," and warned that Iran won't "simply return the SOH [Strait of Hormuz] to how it was before the war."
Kent contended the U.S. can't "use military force to open the SOH (we've tried that) without a catastrophic escalation into a bloody, years-long war." He urged Trump to "pull our troops out of the region," suggesting the president could "declare victory (reiterate the previously stated goal—no nukes—was met) & quietly use the carrot of sanctions relief to open the SOH once our troops are out of harm's way."
Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency disputed Trump's account, calling his claims "nothing but a new lie." NPR reported that Mehr described the president's assertions as "simply a new lie," citing unnamed Iranian military figures. Speaking to the press aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said negotiations would begin "tomorrow afternoon."
Ingle emphasized that Trump "does not make these incredibly important national security decisions based on fluid opinion polls or political pundits, but on the best interests of the American people."
Why This Matters:
The administration's approach combines maximum military pressure with diplomatic engagement, reflecting a strategy that prioritizes American interests while avoiding protracted regional conflict. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies, making its closure a direct threat to energy markets and the global economy. Trump's willingness to use overwhelming force as leverage while pursuing negotiations demonstrates the value of strength-based diplomacy. However, Iran's public denial of requesting talks raises questions about whether both sides are genuinely committed to a negotiated settlement. The outcome will determine whether the U.S. can secure its核心 objectives—denuclearization and freedom of navigation—without the costs of another Middle Eastern war, or whether military escalation remains inevitable.