In an interview with NBC on February 4, President Donald Trump warned that the United States would carry out military strikes if Iran attempted to revive its nuclear programme or establish new nuclear facilities abroad. Trump said U.S. intelligence had “found this thing” and that Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, “should be very worried.” He also asserted that Iran was negotiating with Washington, complicating the public picture of diplomacy intertwined with explicit threats of force.
The remarks come against a backdrop of years-long mistrust between Washington and Tehran that has periodically flared into military confrontation and covert pressure. Since the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Washington and Tehran have exchanged sanctions, proxy confrontations and episodic diplomacy. Trump’s statement is notable less for novelty than for its blunt promise of kinetic action as a first response if Iran is judged to be restarting a weapons-sensitive programme.
Washington did not present corroborating evidence in the interview; the claim that Iranian actors were planning new facilities “in other places” rests on the president’s assertion. That ambiguity will matter to allies, international institutions and markets because unilateral U.S. strikes without a broader coalition or United Nations mandate would risk legal and diplomatic blowback even if they degraded Iranian capabilities.
The threat also complicates any ongoing talks. Public warnings of imminent force can be intended to deter—but they can also harden positions in Tehran and undermine back-channel diplomacy. Iran’s leaders have in the past responded to coercive steps by accelerating enrichment, expanding stockpiles, or leveraging proxies across the region, increasing the chance of miscalculation and wider conflict.
Regional capitals and global institutions will watch for concrete signs: satellite imagery or IAEA assessments confirming new nuclear construction; public Iranian reactions; and responses from U.S. allies such as Israel, Gulf monarchies and European mediators. Markets sensitive to Middle East risk could react quickly to increased uncertainty, while naval and air forces in the region could be repositioned as a precaution.
For Beijing, Moscow and Brussels, a return to overt U.S. threats carries strategic implications. China and Russia, which have cultivated ties with Tehran during years of Western pressure, are likely to urge restraint and call for multilateral verification, while European governments that favoured diplomatic containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions will face renewed pressure to bridge Tehran and Washington.
What happens next hinges on two verifiable elements: whether independent monitors find clear evidence of new Iranian nuclear sites or material transfer, and how Tehran chooses to answer the threat. Absent transparent intelligence or an international mandate, a U.S. decision to strike would turn a deterrent declaration into an escalatory act with unpredictable consequences for the wider Middle East and global security architecture.