ISLAMABAD: The United States has intensified pressure on Iran by demandinga permanent halt to all uranium enrichment activities, strict curbs on itsballistic missile development, and an immediate cessation of support forregional proxy groups. This stance comes amid stalled preliminarydiscussions between Washington and Tehran, following previous militaryactions that targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure. President DonaldTrump has publicly warned that failure to negotiate a comprehensive dealcould lead to severe consequences, including military strikes far moreextensive than those conducted last summer. Iran has firmly rejectedlimitations on its missile program, insisting that uranium enrichmentremains a non-negotiable element of its sovereign rights underinternational treaties.
The core US demands, as outlined by administration officials and reportedin recent analyses, require Iran to dismantle domestic uranium enrichmentcapabilities entirely, remove existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, andaccept zero enrichment on its soil. These preconditions extend beyond thenuclear domain to include range restrictions on ballistic missiles, whichthe US views as a direct threat to allies like Israel. Additionally,Washington insists on ending Iran’s financial and logistical backing forgroups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, labeling them asdestabilizing terrorist proxies. This multifaceted approach reflects arevival of the maximum pressure campaign, aimed at forcing Tehran into abroader agreement that addresses not only nuclear ambitions but alsoregional influence.
Tehran’s response has been unequivocal rejection of the missile curbs andproxy-related conditions, with officials stating that discussions willremain limited to nuclear issues alone. Supreme Leader Ayatollah AliKhamenei and other leaders have described the demands as an infringement onnational sovereignty and a violation of Iran’s rights to peaceful nucleartechnology under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite economicstrains from sanctions and internal unrest, Iran maintains that its missilearsenal serves as essential deterrence against perceived threats,particularly from Israel and the United States. Recent statements fromIranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasize the need for any deal tobe equitable, free from coercion, and respectful of Tehran’s defensivecapabilities.
The impasse has heightened speculation about potential US military options,with sources indicating that President Trump is considering targetedairstrikes on Iranian leadership, security officials responsible fordomestic crackdowns, nuclear facilities, and key government institutions.These deliberations follow a period of failed indirect talks, where noprogress was achieved on bridging the gap between the two sides. Reportssuggest that such actions could aim to inspire renewed domestic protests inIran or degrade capabilities that have rebuilt since prior attacks.However, analysts caution that air power alone may not achieve regimechange, given Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategies, including proxynetworks and advanced missile defenses.
Iran’s ballistic missile program, capable of reaching targets across theMiddle East, remains a major point of contention, especially after itsdemonstrated use in previous conflicts. The US and its allies argue thatunrestricted missile development undermines regional security and enablesproxy aggression. In contrast, Tehran views these weapons as a legitimatemeans of self-defense in the absence of reliable international guarantees.The enrichment issue is equally contentious, with Iran having advanced itscapabilities significantly after the collapse of earlier accords, enrichinguranium to levels approaching weapons-grade material according tointernational monitoring reports.
The broader geopolitical context includes recent US military deployments,such as carrier strike groups in the region, signaling readiness forescalation. President Trump’s public statements on social media platformshave urged Iran to negotiate swiftly, warning of an impending “massivearmada” and consequences far worse than previous interventions. Thisrhetoric has drawn sharp rebukes from Tehran, which vows a powerful andimmediate response to any aggression. Diplomatic channels, includingpotential mediation by regional actors, appear strained, with both sidesentrenched in maximalist positions that leave little room for compromise.
Read Top Stories
Experts highlight the risks of military escalation, noting that any strikecould provoke prolonged conflict involving Iran’s proxies across multiplefronts. Iran’s investment in asymmetric capabilities, including drones,cyber operations, and naval tactics, could impose significant costs on USforces and allies. Moreover, internal dynamics in Iran, marked by recentprotests and government repression, complicate the calculus, as externalpressure might inadvertently bolster regime cohesion through nationalistmobilization. The international community, including the United Nations,has called for de-escalation and renewed diplomacy to avert a wider crisis.
As tensions persist, the outcome hinges on whether backchannel efforts canyield concessions or if military options gain precedence. The US strategyappears designed to leverage economic sanctions, military posturing, andthe threat of force to compel compliance, while Iran prioritizes preservingits core deterrent elements. Without a breakthrough, the region faces theprospect of renewed confrontation with far-reaching implications for globalenergy markets and security.
Source:https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/28/politics/trump-threats-iran-nuclear-program-military-strike
ogimageimage-name