President Donald Trump has given Iran 10 to 15 days to return to negotiations or face repercussions, placing a tight timetable on the latest round of nuclear diplomacy and raising questions about whether military action could follow if talks fail. The new deadline comes after Trump said in June that he would decide “within the next two weeks” whether to strike Iran, ultimately reaching a decision just two days later. On Thursday, he issued another warning, saying the Islamic Republic must move toward negotiations within 10 to 15 days or face consequences.

The shortened timeframe now looms over renewed diplomatic efforts. Analysts note that when Trump sets deadlines, they can serve both as pressure tactics and as signals of potential escalation.

Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, told Fox News Digital, “The Iranian regime has been operating under a grand delusion that they can turn President Trump into President Obama and President Trump has made it clear that that’s not happening.”

Brodsky said officials inside the administration appear doubtful that the talks will lead to a meaningful breakthrough. “I think there’s deep skepticism in the Trump administration that this negotiation is going to produce any acceptable outcome.”

He suggested that diplomacy may be functioning as part of a broader strategy. “They’re using the diplomatic process to sharpen the choices of the Iranian leadership and to buy time to make sure that we have the appropriate military assets in the region.”

A Middle Eastern source familiar with the discussions told Fox News Digital that Iranian leaders recognize how close the threat of conflict feels and are unlikely to intentionally provoke Trump at this moment.

At the same time, the source said Tehran is unwilling to accept restrictions on its short-range missile capabilities, describing that issue as a clear red line established by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iranian negotiators, the source said, do not have authority to compromise on that matter, and any concession on missiles would be perceived domestically as tantamount to defeat in war.

However, the source indicated there could be room for discussion regarding uranium enrichment limits if meaningful sanctions relief were offered in return.

Brodsky argued that Iran’s fundamental positions remain unchanged. “They’re trying to engage in a lot of distraction… shiny objects, to distract from the fact that they’re not prepared to make the concessions that President Trump is requiring of them,” he said. “The Iranian positions do not change and have not changed fundamentally. They refuse to accept President Trump’s position on zero enrichment. They refuse to dismantle their nuclear infrastructure. They refuse limitations on Iran’s missile program, and they refuse to end support for terror groups.”

Behnam Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, cautioned that Tehran may attempt to advance a different kind of arrangement altogether.

“The first kind of deal that we have to be worried about… they may pitch an agreement that is based more on transposing the current reality onto paper… these kinds of agreements are more like understandings,” Taleblu said.

“You take the present reality, and you transpose that onto paper, and then you make the U.S. pay for something it already achieved.”

Taleblu outlined what he views as Iran’s broader goals. “The Iranians want three things, essentially. The first is they want to deter and prevent a strike.”

“The second is that they are actually using negotiations… to take the wind out of the wings of Iranian dissidents. And then the third is… they actually do want some kind of foreign financial stabilization and sanctions relief.”

“What the Iranians want is to play for time… an agreement like this doesn’t really require the Iranians to offer anything.”

Taleblu also said the administration’s strategy remains intentionally unclear. “It’s hard to read the tea leaves of the administration here. Obviously, they don’t want a nuclear Iran, but also obviously they don’t want a long war in the Middle East.”

“The military architecture they’re moving into the region is signaling that they’re prepared to engage in one anyway. The question that the administration has not resolved politically… is: What is the political end state of the strikes? That’s the cultivation of ambiguity that the president excels at.”

Jacob Olidort, Chief Research Officer and Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute, told Fox News Digital, “The President has been clear that he wants to give diplomacy a chance. However, if, in his estimation, diplomatic efforts prove unsuccessful, he will almost certainly turn to military options. What is rightfully unpredictable is the specific objective and scope of military action the President may take.”

“Specifically, will military action serve as a new layer of diplomatic pressure towards creating a new opportunity to make Iran agree to our demands — military force as coercive diplomacy — or simply achieve the intended objectives that diplomacy could not? Regardless, the President has a record of taking bold action to protect the American people from Iran’s threats.”

Sources inside Iran told Fox News Digital that public opinion remains divided. While many Iranians oppose the idea of a foreign military intervention, frustration over the deaths of young protesters continues to fuel unrest and deepen internal tensions.

With the 10 to 15-day window now counting down, Trump’s deadline appears to function not merely as a date on the calendar but as an instrument of leverage in a volatile diplomatic standoff.

{Matzav.com}