Will Trump's warning to Iran be all bark and no bite?

The two sides will meet this Saturday in Oman for talks, but the US president's track record of not following up threats with actions will not be lost on Tehran

Will Trump's warning to Iran be all bark and no bite?

Judging by the limited success US President Donald Trump has achieved to date with his recent peace efforts in Gaza and Ukraine, there can be no guarantees that his attempt to open negotiations with Iran over its controversial nuclear programme will deliver the desired results.

With talks due to take place in Oman this weekend between US and Iranian officials, the Trump administration has made it abundantly clear that its main objective in the talks is to limit Tehran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons.

In comments made earlier this week, Trump stressed that his bottom line in entering talks was to end the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons. “You can’t let them have a nuclear weapon”, he told reporters during a White House briefing.

As if to drive home his determination to achieve a ground-breaking deal in the forthcoming talks, the US military is reported to have deployed a significant force of B-2 stealth bombers to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia in what the Iranians will see as a blatant act of intimidation.

Tehran will also have noted that Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a renowned hawk on Iran’s nuclear ambitions—prior to the talks in Oman. Following his talks with Netanyahu, Trump said both leaders had agreed that “Iran will not have nuclear weapons”, adding the “military option” would come into play if the talks proved unsuccessful.

Aggressive approach

Trump has certainly adopted a highly aggressive tone in advance of the talks, warning that Tehran “is going to be in great danger” if the negotiations do not result in a satisfactory agreement.

Asked directly whether the deployment of stealth bombers meant the US was preparing to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if no deal was forthcoming, Trump replied: "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and if the talks aren't successful I actually think it will be a very bad day for Iran if that's the case.”

Ahead of the Oman talks, Washington issued fresh sanctions against Iran, with the US Treasury Department saying it had imposed sanctions on five Iran-based entities and one person based in Iran for their support of Iran's nuclear programme with the aim of denying Tehran a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime's reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons remains a grave threat to the United States and a menace to regional stability and global security," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in the statement.

Trump's habit of issuing dark warnings and then doing nothing to follow up on his threats will not have been lost on Tehran

"Treasury will continue to leverage our tools and authorities to disrupt any attempt by Iran to advance its nuclear programme and its broader destabilising agenda."

Treasury officials said the bodies had been targeted because they were deemed to support two previously sanctioned entities that manage and oversee the country's nuclear programme, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and its subordinate, the Iran Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA).

Bellicose approach

Trump's bellicose approach is, of course, nothing new, as he has adopted a similarly uncompromising tone during his efforts to halt hostilities in Ukraine.

Having warned the Russian leader that his country would face a fresh round of sanctions if he did not accept Washington's ceasefire terms for Ukraine, Trump has failed to act, so much so that Russia did not even feature in Trump's list of countries to be hit with reciprocal tariffs. And this is despite Russia's decision to launch a fresh offensive in north-east Ukraine this week.

Trump's habit of issuing dark warnings, and then doing nothing to follow up on his threats, will not have been lost on Tehran, where regime officials are being decidedly non-committal about the prospects for the talks, which have been convened after Trump personally wrote to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month offering to open discussions.

Iran has every reason to be wary of Trump's intentions given that he was responsible for withdrawing the US from the nuclear accord agreed with Tehran by the Obama administration in 2015.

Khamenei's initial response to Trump's letter was to accuse the American leader of plotting to assassinate him, denouncing the idea of entering negotiations with the US as "unwise, unintelligent and not honourable."

Araqchi says Iran will hold talks "with a view to seal a deal" so long as Trump agreed there could be no "military option"

Defiant tone

Since then, Iranian officials have bridled at Trump's suggestion that the US will be holding "direct" talks in Oman.  Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi directly contradicted Trump's assertion, insisting that Tehran's position was that the talks should be indirect and that Tehran would not succumb to US pressure and threats.

"Indirect negotiations can guarantee a genuine and effective dialogue," the Iranian foreign minister told Iranian state news agency IRNA.

Araqchi said the talks would be led by himself and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, mediated by Oman's Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi.

Despite the Trump administration's intimidation tactics ahead of the talks, the Iranian regime has nevertheless indicated that a deal on its nuclear programme may still be possible so long as the US agrees that there will be no military solution to the long-standing issue.

Before travelling to Oman, Araqchi said that Iran would enter the talks "with a view to seal a deal" so long as Trump agreed there could be no "military option" to resolving the dispute, insisting that Iran would "never accept coercion".

Iran continues to insist that its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful and that it has no intention of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, despite stockpiling enough highly-enriched uranium to make several nuclear bombs.

The stakes in Oman, therefore, could not be higher. The big question is whether, if the talks fail, Trump is prepared to follow through on his threat to launch military action or if his warnings will turn out to be nothing more than meaningless bluster.

font change