Donald Trump told attendees at the inaugural Board of Peace summit that Iran has roughly 10 days to make a meaningful agreement with the United States or risk further military action, even as diplomats report progress in indirect talks
The clock is ticking. At the Board of Peace summit in Washington, the US president gave Tehran roughly 10 days to reach a deal — or face stepped-up military measures. Even as that public deadline reverberated through capitals, diplomats on both sides continued indirect talks, a reminder that diplomacy and pressure are running on parallel tracks.
Why this matters
What happens in the next few days will influence stability across the Middle East. Washington’s demands center on verifiable limits: strict inspections, caps on uranium enrichment and constraints on missile delivery systems. Tehran insists it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon and has signaled some willingness to accept constraints — but only under ironclad inspection arrangements.
How Iran answers the president’s timeline will likely decide whether tensions ease through diplomacy or intensify under a mix of sanctions and force posture.
What the president said — and what negotiators are doing
The president framed the timeline bluntly: negotiate fast and verifiably, or prepare for additional countermeasures.
That ultimatum has pushed negotiators to turn broad political aims into concrete, enforceable commitments. The current focus is practical and technical: language that inspectors can test, clear numerical caps on enrichment, and explicit limits on missile testing and delivery capabilities.
Iran’s officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have publicly reiterated Tehran’s long-standing position against building a bomb and reported progress on shared guiding principles after recent indirect exchanges. US envoys, for their part, have emphasized that any deal must include both tight verification and meaningful curbs on ballistic missile activity.
Two tracks: diplomacy and deterrence
Behind the public diplomacy, military moves have been unmistakable. The Pentagon has repositioned forces in the region — visible deployments of ships, two carrier strike groups and multiple fighter jets — underscoring the leverage Washington is prepared to use. Iran has answered with defiant rhetoric and reminders of its ballistic and anti-ship capabilities. These displays alter the political calculus: they can hasten a settlement by raising the costs of delay, but they also heighten the risk of missteps that could spin out of control.
Progress so far and the technical phase ahead
Recent rounds — including exchanges in Geneva following earlier talks in Oman — produced modest headway. Diplomats say the next phase is intensely technical: drafting precise monitoring protocols, setting timelines for compliance, and establishing triggers for steps that either side would take in response to violations. If negotiators can codify verification mechanisms and build quick, transparent implementation procedures into the text, momentum could carry the parties toward a broader agreement.
Sticking points
Several persistent issues remain thorny. How to quantify enrichment caps, what level of access inspectors will have, and the extent of acceptable limits on missile-related activities are all battlegrounds. Equally tricky is sequencing: when and how sanctions relief or other incentives would be provided in exchange for verifiable steps. Each side wants assurances the other cannot renege, and writing those assurances into legally binding language is proving difficult.
Political backdrop and regional implications
Domestic politics in both countries add pressure. In Tehran, hardliners and pragmatists are watching how any concessions will play at home; in Washington, lawmakers from across the spectrum are scrutinizing whether a deal truly curbs Iran’s capabilities. Beyond the two capitals, regional actors — Israel, Gulf states, and others — are closely monitoring negotiations and calibrating their own responses. A breakthrough could reduce the risk of wider confrontation; failure or a breakdown could prompt an uptick in covert or overt measures across the region.
How stakeholders can prepare
Governments and regional partners are already positioning: contingency plans for maritime security, briefings to allies, and diplomatic outreach to manage spillover effects. International organizations and inspection agencies are preparing technical teams and monitoring protocols that would be needed on short notice. For policymakers, the immediate task is pragmatic: plan for both an agreement that needs rapid implementation and scenarios in which pressure escalates.
Near-term outlook
The coming days will be decisive. If negotiators can translate the public principles reported in Geneva into airtight, inspectable commitments, diplomacy will have a clear path forward. If not, the combination of a public ultimatum and intensified military posture could shrink options fast. Either way, the next week-and-a-half promises intense, high-stakes diplomacy where small drafting choices may determine whether tensions ease or rise.
