U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly set a two-month deadline for Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement, according to a U.S. official and two sources briefed on the matter. The ultimatum was included in a letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, raising the stakes for potential diplomatic talks or military action.

 

It remains unclear whether the two-month deadline began when the letter was delivered or if it will start once negotiations commence. However, if Iran rejects Trump’s proposal and refuses to negotiate, the risk of U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities will significantly increase.

 

Iran’s nuclear program has advanced considerably over the past four years, making it closer than ever to producing a nuclear weapon. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran possesses enough 60% enriched uranium to build six nuclear bombs if further enriched to 90%. Iran, however, denies that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

 

Two weeks ago, Trump disclosed in an interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that he had sent a letter to Khamenei offering direct negotiations. The following day, he warned that the U.S. was "down to the final moments" regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We can't let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem,” he stated.

 

 

The letter was delivered recently by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff to the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ), in a meeting in Abu Dhabi. The next day, MBZ’s envoy Anwar Gargash traveled to Tehran and handed the letter to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

 

Sources familiar with the letter described it as “tough.” While it proposed negotiations for a new nuclear agreement, it also included warnings about potential consequences if Iran rejected the offer and continued its nuclear program. Trump emphasized that he did not want open-ended negotiations and explicitly stated a two-month period for reaching a deal, according to two sources.

 

Before delivering the letter, the White House briefed key U.S. allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, on its contents. Neither the White House nor the Iranian mission to the United Nations has commented on the matter.

 

Last week, Khamenei dismissed Trump’s letter and proposal as “a deception” designed to create the impression that Iran was unwilling to negotiate.

 

While he stated he was against talks with the U.S., the Iranian mission to the UN later released a statement that did not entirely rule out discussions.

 

“If the objective of negotiations is to address concerns vis-à-vis any potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, such discussions may be subject to consideration,” the statement read. However, the Iranian mission made it clear that if the talks were aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program to claim a diplomatic victory over the Obama-era nuclear deal, “such negotiations will never take place.”

 

Iran’s Foreign Ministry recently told reporters that Trump’s letter is still under review and that a response is being prepared. Meanwhile, tensions in the region continue to escalate. Trump warned on Monday that the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for any further attacks by the Houthis in Yemen, threatening “dire consequences.” Iran has denied controlling the Houthis.

 

On Wednesday, Trump claimed on Truth Social that there were reports of Iran reducing its military support for the Houthis but added that they were “still sending large levels of supplies.” He reiterated his demand for Iran to cease aiding the Houthis.

 

Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, reinforced the administration’s stance, stating that Iran must “hand over and give up” all aspects of its nuclear program, including missiles, weaponization, and uranium enrichment, or face “a whole series of other consequences.” Waltz emphasized that Iran had been offered a diplomatic solution but warned that failure to comply could have severe repercussions.

 

Based on a report by AXIOS  2025-03-21

 

 

As good as Trump is doing in the US , his foreign policy is as bad as his first term.

Again doing Israel's bidding.

Iran has a right to have nukes and what he's is doing in Yemen (Iran ally ) is terrible.

So the NO-wars president is going to start a war if Iran does not comply ?

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly set a two-month deadline for Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement, according to a U.S. official and two sources briefed on the matter. The ultimatum was included in a letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, raising the stakes for potential diplomatic talks or military action.

 

It remains unclear whether the two-month deadline began when the letter was delivered or if it will start once negotiations commence. However, if Iran rejects Trump’s proposal and refuses to negotiate, the risk of U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities will significantly increase.

 

Iran’s nuclear program has advanced considerably over the past four years, making it closer than ever to producing a nuclear weapon. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran possesses enough 60% enriched uranium to build six nuclear bombs if further enriched to 90%. Iran, however, denies that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

 

Two weeks ago, Trump disclosed in an interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that he had sent a letter to Khamenei offering direct negotiations. The following day, he warned that the U.S. was "down to the final moments" regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We can't let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem,” he stated.

 

 

The letter was delivered recently by Trump envoy Steve Witkoff to the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ), in a meeting in Abu Dhabi. The next day, MBZ’s envoy Anwar Gargash traveled to Tehran and handed the letter to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

 

Sources familiar with the letter described it as “tough.” While it proposed negotiations for a new nuclear agreement, it also included warnings about potential consequences if Iran rejected the offer and continued its nuclear program. Trump emphasized that he did not want open-ended negotiations and explicitly stated a two-month period for reaching a deal, according to two sources.

 

Before delivering the letter, the White House briefed key U.S. allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, on its contents. Neither the White House nor the Iranian mission to the United Nations has commented on the matter.

 

Last week, Khamenei dismissed Trump’s letter and proposal as “a deception” designed to create the impression that Iran was unwilling to negotiate.

 

While he stated he was against talks with the U.S., the Iranian mission to the UN later released a statement that did not entirely rule out discussions.

 

“If the objective of negotiations is to address concerns vis-à-vis any potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, such discussions may be subject to consideration,” the statement read. However, the Iranian mission made it clear that if the talks were aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear program to claim a diplomatic victory over the Obama-era nuclear deal, “such negotiations will never take place.”

 

Iran’s Foreign Ministry recently told reporters that Trump’s letter is still under review and that a response is being prepared. Meanwhile, tensions in the region continue to escalate. Trump warned on Monday that the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for any further attacks by the Houthis in Yemen, threatening “dire consequences.” Iran has denied controlling the Houthis.

 

On Wednesday, Trump claimed on Truth Social that there were reports of Iran reducing its military support for the Houthis but added that they were “still sending large levels of supplies.” He reiterated his demand for Iran to cease aiding the Houthis.

 

Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, reinforced the administration’s stance, stating that Iran must “hand over and give up” all aspects of its nuclear program, including missiles, weaponization, and uranium enrichment, or face “a whole series of other consequences.” Waltz emphasized that Iran had been offered a diplomatic solution but warned that failure to comply could have severe repercussions.

 

Based on a report by AXIOS  2025-03-21

 

 

I hope Donald can remember to whom he wrote letters already or sent warnings.😳

 

Well Trump seems to be failing in the US as his economic policy has been absolutely horrendous, his tariffs have been an abomination, and his destruction of long held alliances with supportive, friendly, and kind nations has been an embarrassment to everyone who calls themself an American, unless they are the most avid of his supporters.

 

Now it appears that his foreign policy is failing, he claimed that he was going to get America out of wars, and end the war in Ukraine in a day. Bombing Iran with the extreme and genocidal Israeli government as a partner would not be a smart idea. America could be looking at decades of blowback and terror attacks from that, but Trump simply wouldn't understand that concept. He's too simplistic for that. 

Ayatollah don't Khomaini closer warns Donald.

May 18, 2018

 

President Donald J. Trump is Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal

 

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-ending-united-states-participation-unacceptable-iran-deal/

...  Should have given them 10 hours .................. Period !

1 hour ago, FlorC said:

As good as Trump is doing in the US , his foreign policy is as bad as his first term.

Again doing Israel's bidding.

Iran has a right to have nukes and what he's is doing in Yemen (Iran ally ) is terrible.

So the NO-wars president is going to start a war if Iran does not comply ?

I happen to believe Iran when they say death to America and Death to Israel. If they have nuclear weapons then they can act on those threats. You think that's ok? Oh and it's ok for Houthi's to obstruct shipping in the Red Sea. Most can read between the lines of your pathetic post.

The way Trump is talking tough and gambling, he'll start WWIII .....

 

.

Trump is escalating the tension in the middle-east with his threats and Iran will never yield. He should instead continue the work of United Nation on establishing the middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Simple common sense that he will never grasped. 

So he wants a deal to cover for the treaty he walked away from. A little late, again.

1 hour ago, 300sd said:

I happen to believe Iran when they say death to America and Death to Israel. If they have nuclear weapons then they can act on those threats. You think that's ok? Oh and it's ok for Houthi's to obstruct shipping in the Red Sea. Most can read between the lines of your pathetic post.

Yes.

41 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

So he wants a deal to cover for the treaty he walked away from. A little late, again.

 

   Trump was unable to act previously  because he wasn't President then 

The Obama Administration had some people who understood the world. The current POTUS does not.

 

The JCPOA was working just fine. Iran---having learned US cyber capabilities when it was hobbled by Stuxnet---made a choice to give up nuke development. Enrichment reactors were filled with cement. High speed centrifuges---smashed via the Stuxnet worm---were abandoned. Inspectors were allowed to go anywhere at anytime to check if Iran was in compliance. Via HUMINT and SIGINT, the agency reported every six months on Iran's compliance. The Iran nuke program halted 100% (despite Netayanhu trying a cover op and releasing Iran nuke documents from 2003).

 

The JCPOA has two objectives. The first was to halt Iran's nuke development. That succeeded 100%. The second was to use the JCPOA as a stepping stone for additional negotiations on Iran funding of Shi'a terror groups. The assessment was that the mullahs were aging and the majority of Iran's young wanted to join the international community and become prosperous. Sadly, when 45 abrogated the treaty, not only did Iran re-start enrichment of U235, the aggression of 45 turned an increasing percent of the populace away from the West. Even those who didn't like the mullahs, were outraged both with the way 45 spoke of Iranians (all people have some pride, including those with a history 25 times longer than the US' history) and when he ordered Gen Suleimani assassinated.

 

Now the clown seems to realize Obama was right, and halting the nuke program is in everyone's interest.

 

When you "fix" what ain't broken, you look like a fool. Nobody is better at looking like a fool than the current POTUS.

 

Somebody ought to tell the clown: if you "solve" Ukraine but attack Iran, NO PEACE PRIZE FOR YOU!.

Snip from the OP

 

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly set a two-month deadline for Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement, according to a U.S. official and two sources briefed on the matter. The ultimatum was included in a letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, raising the stakes for potential diplomatic talks or military action.

 

And how will he get US troops into Iran.

 

I doubt that the EU or NATO will allow him access, and if he sends ships and troops into Arab Gulf. they will have to invade and take over every port and sea access from the Straits of Hormuz up to Iraq. I doubt if any Middle east countries, other than the nuclear armed Israel, will allow him access.

 

That leaves him the USAF, until the body bags start to come home, unless he uses nuclear weapons, which IMHO will be the worst thing he could do.

Iran has 2 months to get the mines and underwater drones ready to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Let's see what that will do to the world economy.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Trump was unable to act previously  because he wasn't President then 

In his first term of office (as President) Trump withdrew the U.S. from the treaty with Iran that Obama had negotiated.

 

He absolutely was President when he did so.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In his first term of office (as President) Trump withdrew the U.S. from the treaty with Iran that Obama had negotiated.

 

He absolutely was President when he did so.

 

 

 

   Follow the discussion .

Read the post that I replied to 

A post making false claims about Putin instructing Trump to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear treaty to destabilize NATO has been removed. @cjinchiangrai 

 

"Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

I'm sure Iran's nuclear facilities will be destroyed, the only question is when.

 

It simply is necessary, also as a deterrent to others.

I have noticed that when a country does get nuclear weapons like Israel, North Korea and Pakistan for instance, America stops arguing that they should not have them.

If Iran does get nuclear missiles, their first target is likely to be Israel. Could Israel to get thrown under the bus by its closest partner?

Next week drop a MOAP on their nuclear facility and post on X :

 

"Ha ha, fooled ya. Eat it Mullahs"

From AXIOS  :   "  Former U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly set a two-month deadline for Iran ...........

 

 

Why Former ?   

Had this piece been written before Jan 20, 2025   and recycled to March 2025  ???

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

two-month deadline

Plenty of time to leave Israel for a nuclear safe country.

45 minutes ago, sscc said:

From AXIOS  :   "  Former U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly set a two-month deadline for Iran ...........

 

 

Why Former ?   

Had this piece been written before Jan 20, 2025   and recycled to March 2025  ???

 

   Seems to just be a mistake 

1 hour ago, FlorC said:

Iran has 2 months to get the mines and underwater drones ready to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Let's see what that will do to the world economy.

 

The countries that will be effected are: Middle Eastern, Germany, France, the UK, China, and India. Least effected: the US, Canada, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil. This all according to Grok. Thailand Grok says would fit in thusly: 

 

"Thailand would fall under the category of "Singapore and Southeast Asian Nations," which I (Grok) listed as number 6. To clarify its specific position relative to the other countries mentioned, I’d place Thailand roughly in the middle to lower tier of the most affected countries—likely around 7th or 8th in terms of severity—depending on how you weigh the impacts on larger economies like China or India.

Why Thailand Fits Here

Trade Dependence: Thailand relies on the Suez Canal for exporting goods like electronics, automobiles, and rubber to Europe, as well as importing oil and gas from the Middle East. While not as massive a trading hub as Singapore, it’s still a significant player in Southeast Asia.

Impact: A blockade would increase shipping times and costs (rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope), disrupt its export-driven economy, and raise energy prices. However, its economy is smaller and less globally integrated than China’s or India’s, so the absolute scale of disruption would be less severe.

Comparison: Thailand would be less affected than Egypt (direct revenue loss), Europe (massive import reliance), or China (export volume), but more impacted than the Americas or Russia, which have minimal dependence on the canal.

So, if I (Grok) were to rank the countries explicitly from my previous list, Thailand would slot in like this:

Egypt

European Countries (e.g., Germany, UK, France, Italy)

China

India

Middle Eastern Oil Exporters (e.g., Saudi Arabia, UAE)

Singapore

Thailand

Japan and South Korea

This ranking considers economic reliance on the canal, trade volume, and vulnerability to energy disruptions. Thailand’s position reflects its role as a regional exporter and energy importer, but it’s not as critically tied to the canal as the top-tier countries."

 

So sort of good news for those of us living here and in Southeast Asia. 

Wasn't there already a deal—JCPOA—that NATO allies and the UN backed, which Trump broke in 2018? Iran was in compliance per the IAEA, but Trump pulled out and reimposed sanctions.

Now he's giving them a two-month ultimatum for a new deal after being the one who scrapped the last one?

Seems like a mess of his own making.

Kind of like his so-called ‘historic’ Middle East peace deals—agreements between countries that weren’t even at war, while ignoring Palestine.

And now Israel-Gaza ceasefire broken, and with Gaza still in flames.

And let’s not forget his ‘end the Ukraine war in one day’ promise—still waiting on that miracle too.
 

Trump: A foreign policy stable—unstable genius.

11 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

The countries that will be effected are: Middle Eastern, Germany, France, the UK, China, and India. Least effected: the US, Canada, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil. This all according to Grok. Thailand Grok says would fit in thusly: 

 

"Thailand would fall under the category of "Singapore and Southeast Asian Nations," which I (Grok) listed as number 6. To clarify its specific position relative to the other countries mentioned, I’d place Thailand roughly in the middle to lower tier of the most affected countries—likely around 7th or 8th in terms of severity—depending on how you weigh the impacts on larger economies like China or India.

Why Thailand Fits Here

Trade Dependence: Thailand relies on the Suez Canal for exporting goods like electronics, automobiles, and rubber to Europe, as well as importing oil and gas from the Middle East. While not as massive a trading hub as Singapore, it’s still a significant player in Southeast Asia.

Impact: A blockade would increase shipping times and costs (rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope), disrupt its export-driven economy, and raise energy prices. However, its economy is smaller and less globally integrated than China’s or India’s, so the absolute scale of disruption would be less severe.

Comparison: Thailand would be less affected than Egypt (direct revenue loss), Europe (massive import reliance), or China (export volume), but more impacted than the Americas or Russia, which have minimal dependence on the canal.

So, if I (Grok) were to rank the countries explicitly from my previous list, Thailand would slot in like this:

Egypt

European Countries (e.g., Germany, UK, France, Italy)

China

India

Middle Eastern Oil Exporters (e.g., Saudi Arabia, UAE)

Singapore

Thailand

Japan and South Korea

This ranking considers economic reliance on the canal, trade volume, and vulnerability to energy disruptions. Thailand’s position reflects its role as a regional exporter and energy importer, but it’s not as critically tied to the canal as the top-tier countries."

 

So sort of good news for those of us living here and in Southeast Asia. 

 

 

Strait of Hormuz is energy . Oil prices will effect nearly all countries . (not Russia !)

 

I think you mean Gulf of Aden to the Suez canal . Yes hopefully the Houthis can block that too if they attack Iran.

Now they just target ships to Israel. (and Trump's navy)

 

1 minute ago, FlorC said:

 

 

Strait of Hormuz is energy . Oil prices will effect nearly all countries . (not Russia !)

 

I think you mean Gulf of Aden to the Suez canal . Yes hopefully the Houthis can block that too if they attack Iran.

Now they just target ships to Israel. (and Trump's navy)

 

 

All countries in North America and a good number in South America are self sufficient in energy. So oil prices are not perfectly fungible, especially in a geopolitical crisis. Egypt of course loses all the fees it gets for using its canal. But I'd think the Europeans would be absolutely devastated. They're already paying emergency energy prices. And it will not be good for China and India either. China in particular is vulnerable to energy cut offs and export blockades. And perhaps the US would go ahead and push that scenario in the event of a war with Iran--because I'm sure China is going to howl. Better to strike China now rather than wait for China to strike Taiwan and the US later might be the reasoning (not mine, I hasten to add).

^ For energy China can rely on Russia ,  Venezuela.

Some may be sort of self sufficient but they will feel a much higher oil price.