Trump warns of “something very tough” on Iran as Oman talks continue

President Donald Trump escalated his public posture toward Iran this week, warning that if indirect talks brokered in Oman do not yield a deal, the United States “will have to do something very tough,” and signaling he may dispatch another aircraft carrier to the Middle East.

Trump made the comments in interviews published Feb. 10 with Israel’s Channel 12 and Axios and in remarks to reporters aboard Air Force One on Feb. 7, saying “Either we make a deal, or we have to do something very tough - like last time” and that “the Iranians really want to make a deal.” He also told reporters the United States “has a big armada, and we have a big fleet heading in that direction, gonna be there pretty soon,” and elsewhere said “we have an armada there and maybe another one on the way.”

The remarks came as U.S. and Iranian delegations held indirect, mediator-run exchanges in Oman last week and agreed to follow-on meetings after consultations with their capitals. U.S. participants included the president’s envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and U.S. Central Command commander Adm. Brad Cooper, whose presence was described by Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon as intended to “signal resolve and to intimidate.” Trump described the talks as “very good,” saying Iran “looks like it wants to make a deal very badly.”

U.S. negotiating demands, as outlined publicly, are wide-ranging: complete abandonment of Iran’s nuclear programme and surrender of enriched uranium, limits on the number and range of ballistic missiles, and an end to support for proxy groups including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Administration officials cited by the Council on Foreign Relations and other outlets have said contingency options under consideration include cyber operations, military strikes and expanded sanctions.

Key operational details remain contested. Several outlets and Trump himself described the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and additional warships as already deployed to the region, yet a Wall Street Journal account cited by the CFR said the United States currently has no aircraft carrier in the Middle East or Europe and would need to reposition assets. That contradiction underscores uncertainty about immediate U.S. military posture and timelines for any movement of forces.

The broader geopolitical context includes sustained unrest inside Iran and explicit Tehran warnings of retaliation. Human Rights Activists News Agency figures, relayed in a CFR timeline, report protest-related casualties ranging from at least 19 deaths in early January to HRANA claims of more than 2,600 deaths by mid-January; the outlet cautioned that an ongoing communications blackout made independent verification difficult. Iran’s Supreme Leader warned a U.S. attack could spark a regional war, and a senior Iranian official threatened strikes on U.S. bases if Washington intervened.

Economic and market implications are immediate and material. Heightened risk of confrontation typically drives safe-haven flows into Treasuries and the dollar, lifts defense contractors’ stock valuations and puts upward pressure on oil and shipping insurance premiums given the Gulf’s centrality to global energy flows. For policymakers, the calculus is now one of balancing deterrence and de-escalation: blunt military options may deter but also risk grave regional spillovers and sustained disruptions to trade and energy markets.

Administratively, reporting indicates the White House has not settled on a clear post-action strategy, and some senior officials say there is no consensus on regime change or long-term objectives. With follow-on talks planned early next week and public threats sharpened, markets and diplomats will be watching whether diplomacy can close gaps on verification and enforceable concessions, or whether the United States will follow through on the “very tough” measures Trump has invoked.