Trump confirms he is considering attacking Iran, which is already calculating its response.

BeirutDonald Trump upped the ante in his standoff with Iran on Friday. Speaking to the media, he confirmed that his administration is considering a "limited" military strike. The threat, increasingly credible after the buildup of US military personnel in the region and the deployment of various types of anti-aircraft batteries to allied countries, aims to force the Tehran regime to reach a new agreement on its nuclear program. Trump has set a period of between 10 and 15 daysAn ultimatum that the president himself has described as necessary before "really bad things happen."

In Iran, Trump's declaration has been interpreted as more than just diplomatic pressure. Although the US president has spoken of a targeted strike and not open war, in the Persian country that distinction matters little. For the authorities, the message is clear: Washington negotiates while leaving the door open to force. Iranian state media have reacted with a measured but firm tone. The official IRNA news agency speaks of "repeated rhetoric" and points out that the Islamic Republic has survived years of sanctions, sabotage, and targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists. On state television, commentators close to the government insist that Iran does not negotiate under duress. Meanwhile, the reformist press emphasizes the economic risk of a new escalation and warns that the country is not in a position to absorb another military clash.

The government has opted for a two-pronged response. On the one hand, it is keeping the diplomatic route open. The Foreign Minister reiterated, in interviews with international news agencies, that Tehran is willing to discuss technical limits on uranium enrichment, provided that sanctions are lifted and verifiable guarantees are offered. Meanwhile, the internal discourse calls for resistance. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated this week that Iran "is not seeking war, but will not accept impositions." It is a familiar message, but delivered now against the backdrop of US military movements in the Persian Gulf. On the street, the concern is economic rather than ideological. The currency fluctuates again every time Trump speaks. Many remember that previous cycles of sanctions triggered inflation and reduced purchasing power. The possibility of an attack is not met with patriotic fervor, but with practical concern. The regional dimension also weighs heavily in the Iranian calculation. Media outlets close to the military establishment frequently remind us of this. the strategic importance of the Strait of HormuzA key step for global energy trade. This is not an explicit threat of closure, but rather a constant reminder that any conflict would not be contained within Iran's borders.

Internal Credibility vs. Confrontation

At the same time, critical voices within the country fear that external pressure will strengthen the regime's hardliners. Iranian analysts abroad point out that when the threat comes from outside, internal debate diminishes and security becomes the priority. Past experience supports this perception. In Israel and some Gulf countries, media coverage is closely watching Washington's moves, albeit with varying nuances. Iran is walking a tightrope. If it gives in to ultimatums, it risks losing domestic credibility. If it responds with escalation, it exposes itself to a direct confrontation with the United States. Trump speaks of options under consideration and decisions imminent, but there is also an awareness that a miscalculation could transform pressure into open conflict. Recent history has shown that the line between warning and attack can be thin. In Tehran, this attention translates into vigilance. For now, there are no visible mobilizations or extraordinary announcements. There is vigilance, measured messages, and a tense wait. The question is whether this time the threat will remain verbal pressure or escalate into military action.

As the clock ticks, Iranian society once again finds itself at this crossroads between external challenge and internal fragility. In Iran, they have learned that crises rarely stay within their predicted limits. And in a region accustomed to escalations, even once contained, a situation can open a door that proves difficult to close later. Threats occur, but the consequences remain.