A Chinese account published on Feb 17, 2026 describes a rapid reversal in expectations about US policy toward Iran: after Tehran’s security official signalled that Washington appeared to be stepping back from military action, the piece says, US President Donald Trump issued a one-month “final ultimatum” demanding a deal or threatening “very serious” consequences. Within a day, the article adds, the United States dispatched a second carrier strike group to the region to operate alongside the USS Abraham Lincoln, a move portrayed as tangible preparation for military pressure rather than mere signalling.
The narrative in the Chinese piece frames the US posture as part of a long-running pattern of “talk while pressing” that dates back to the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear accord. That history, the article argues, has hollowed out mutual trust and made a diplomatic, multilateral settlement harder to achieve. The one-month deadline is depicted less as the start of credible negotiations than as a high-risk performative demand that could corner Tehran and heighten the chance of miscalculation.
Regionally, the timing is dangerous. The Middle East remains unsettled by the Gaza war, an unruly Syrian theatre and repeated attacks on Red Sea shipping, and a new flare-up between Washington and Tehran could instantly reverberate through energy and trade channels. Iran controls significant oil resources and sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, through which a meaningful share of the world’s seaborne oil transits; any military clash that interrupts flows would quickly spike prices and strain already fragile supply chains.
Domestically in the United States, the article portrays the ultimatum as entwined with electoral calculations and alliance politics, particularly commitments to Israel and regional partners. Whether motivated by strategic calculation or political signalling, the move risks hardening positions on both sides and narrowing the diplomatic window. The result, the account suggests, could be a renewed escalation that inflicts wider damage than any immediate military exchange might imply.
The piece closes with a wider appeal for dialogue, warning that two decades of external intervention have produced scars rather than order, and that fresh conflict would impose heavy human and economic costs. It highlights China’s advocacy for political settlement and collective security as an alternative, while concluding that, given current mistrust and posture, the prospects for a mutually acceptable agreement are slim unless parties change incentives and de‑escalate urgently.
For international readers the core takeaway is straightforward: whether or not every detail of the Chinese account is independently verifiable, the combination of an ultimatum, added US naval forces and a combustible regional backdrop materially increases the risk of wider disruption. Policymakers and markets should treat such shifts as signals that diplomatic contingencies and crisis-management channels need urgent reinforcement to prevent missteps with global consequences.