US President Donald Trump is puzzled by Iran's resilience despite increased US military pressure. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that Trump wonders why Iran hasn’t "capitulated" amid the buildup in the Middle East.

Get the latest headlines in your email

During a Fox News interview on Saturday, Witkoff mentioned Trump's curiosity after he warned Iran of limited military action if no agreement was reached regarding its nuclear program. The US and European allies suspect Iran of aiming to develop nuclear weapons, a claim Tehran denies.

Anti-government protests occurred at Iranian universities over the weekend. These are the largest since January's crackdown, which reportedly resulted in thousands of deaths. Witkoff stated that although Trump understands his options, he is puzzled by Iran's lack of cooperation under intense US military presence.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi expressed hope for a diplomatic resolution, describing negotiations as "a win-win game." He told CBS News that elements of a potential deal are being discussed. Araghchi mentioned that a draft agreement would be submitted to Witkoff shortly.

On 17 February, US and Iranian officials engaged in indirect talks in Geneva, Switzerland, and reported progress. Oman, mediator of the talks, announced a new round of negotiations in Geneva on Thursday. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi expressed optimism for finalizing the deal on social media.

Despite advancements in talks, Trump stated on Thursday that the outcome would be clear within ten days, hinting at either a deal or military action.

The US has significantly increased its military presence in the region. This includes deploying the USS Gerald R Ford, USS Abraham Lincoln, destroyers, combat ships, and fighter jets.

BBC-verified footage showed protests at Tehran’s Sharif University of Technology. Demonstrators clashed with government supporters, also seen at other Tehran universities and Ferdowsi University in Mashhad. Some protesters displayed the pre-1979 Lion and Sun flag, chanting "Javid Shah" ("long live the king").

Counter-protests involved burning US and Israeli flags and clashes between opposing groups, particularly at Amirkabir University of Technology. Students gathered in memory of those killed in previous government crackdowns.

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (Hrana) confirmed at least 7,015 deaths during the recent protests, including 6,508 protesters and 226 children. They are investigating additional deaths. Iranian officials reported 3,100 fatalities, claiming most were security personnel or bystanders.

President Trump has historically backed the protesters, previously suggesting US support was imminent.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 22 Feb 2026

View full article

Why is that news ? Sounds like a normal conversation between adults

52 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Why is that news ? Sounds like a normal conversation between adults

The problem is that Trump is not an adult

2 hours ago, still kicking said:

The problem is that Trump is not an adult

So either way, its certainly NOT news worthy. Desperation isn't a good look on the anti trumpers

"Trump supports the protesters." At home and abroad?

Nukes. The US has them, why shouldn't Iran?

The point is, a nuclear country has to destroy its nukes first. South Africa did. But none of the other nations have any courage.

Trump team seeks Iran strike ‘off-ramp’

Senior Trump administration officials are quietly exploring an “off-ramp” after President Donald Trump threatened a possible new U.S. strike on Iran over its nuclear program, according to a new report.

On Friday, Trump signalled he is weighing a limited military strike if Tehran refuses to agree to a deal curbing its nuclear ambitions. The warning immediately heightened tensions, reviving fears of another confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

But behind closed doors, insiders are reportedly questioning whether more airstrikes would actually achieve the administration’s goals. The New York Times reported Sunday that multiple U.S. officials familiar with internal discussions are sceptical that bombing Iran again would effectively dismantle its nuclear capabilities.

According to the report, officials from both sides are considering a narrower diplomatic path. The emerging proposal would allow Iran to maintain a very limited nuclear enrichment program strictly for medical research and treatment purposes. Supporters see it as a potential compromise that could prevent direct military conflict.

The development comes as Iranian officials prepare to submit a “draft plan” to Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, within days, the BBC reported. The timing suggests negotiations may still be alive even as military options remain on the table.

Trump has not yet made a final decision about striking Iran. Last year, his administration bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities and declared them “totally obliterated.” That operation marked one of the most aggressive moves of his presidency on Iran policy.

Last Wednesday, top national security leaders convened in the White House Situation Room to review potential strike options, according to the Times. Attendees included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

The internal debate underscores a familiar tension in Trump’s foreign policy approach: balancing threats of force with last-minute negotiations. With Iran’s nuclear program once again at center stage, the administration appears to be weighing whether diplomacy can deliver what air power may not.

Key Takeaways

• Trump is considering a limited strike on Iran over its nuclear program.

• Insiders doubt airstrikes alone would achieve U.S. objectives.

• A proposal for limited medical-only enrichment could offer a diplomatic “off-ramp.”

Trump insiders quietly creating 'off-ramp' after latest strike threat

As I indicated before, Iran probably understands America better than America understands Iran. Worringly, America's version of an "Iran Watcher" seems to be the the Marxist-Islamist MEK party, reminiscent of the Iraqi "opposition" who seemed content on feeding a bunch of falsehoods. America, like all the democracies, is plain to see. There aren't shadowy personalities who are the realm strong pullers.

If you go back to 1978-79, the Americans in Iran were genuinely not popular outside of the main cities. There is no evidence the opposition is particularly pre-American or even pro-Western.

Ironically, the Iranian leader who was probably the closest to a Western idea of a politician was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he was vociferously anti-Western, but that didn't mean he was in favour of a hermit Republic. He forged links with Hugo Chavez and Putin. And he was a thorn in the side of the clerics; he campaigned as a populist. Since then, the Iranian Presidents have been a revolving door of nobodies, and the Supreme Leader is really in control. And we don't really understand these Supreme Leaders. They aren't Kings, they are not like Emirs, they live in their own cleric city. To us, they seem a bit mystic. We don't really know who the men in suits sent to negotiate really represent, and what exactly is their brief or freedom to operate. But you would know who Ahmadinejad represented.

Just so everyone is clear: Obama already had an Iran nuclear deal. Trump ripped it up when he came into office, choosing a policy of “Maximum Pressure” instead. So now he's saying we might go to war in order to get an Iran nuclear deal. You cannot make this stuff up.

And the deal he us trying to get is exactly the one he tore up.