President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he is deliberating whether the United States should participate in Israeli military strikes on Iran. He also claimed that Iranian officials had approached the U.S. seeking negotiations to resolve the intensifying conflict.
Trump made these remarks while observing the installation of a new flagpole at the White House. Indicating growing impatience, he emphasized that his tolerance for Tehran’s actions had already worn thin and reiterated his demand for Iran’s complete and unconditional capitulation. “My patience had already run out,” he declared, adding once again his call for the Islamic republic’s “unconditional surrender.”
Addressing reporters from the South Lawn, Trump responded ambiguously when asked if he had made a final decision on launching American airstrikes. “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he said, maintaining his characteristically unpredictable stance.
The escalating situation follows Israeli military actions targeting Iran, including reports that one of Israel’s drones was downed over Iranian territory. Despite the rising tensions, Trump pointed to Iran’s growing difficulties as a sign that the country was feeling pressure. “I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,” Trump stated.
According to the president, Iranian officials had even proposed dispatching envoys to the White House to open discussions focused on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, hoping such talks could put an end to Israel’s continuing air campaign. However, Trump appeared dismissive of the proposal’s timing. “I said it’s very late to be talking. We may meet. There’s a big difference between now and a week ago, right? Big difference,” he remarked.
Still, Trump acknowledged the gravity of Iran’s overture, describing the offer as a bold move on Tehran’s part. “They’ve suggested that they come to the White House. That’s, you know, courageous, but it’s, like, not easy for them to do,” he said. Despite calling it “very late,” Trump did not rule out the possibility of engagement. When asked directly whether it was too late for negotiations, he replied, “Nothing is too late.”
This moment marks a significant shift in Trump’s approach to Iran. During his presidency, he initially favored a diplomatic strategy aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program, seeking a new deal to replace the 2015 agreement he had withdrawn from in 2018. However, with Israel’s recent air assaults now in their sixth day, Trump appears to be aligning more closely with America’s key Middle Eastern ally, signaling a willingness to consider military measures.
In parallel, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, confirming that the Pentagon is supplying President Trump with potential strategies regarding Iran. However, he stopped short of revealing whether the U.S. military intended to participate directly in Israeli-led strikes.
Hegseth’s comments came during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the final installment in a series of sometimes confrontational sessions with legislators. Throughout the hearings, he has faced questions on a range of topics, including his controversial use of encrypted messaging app Signal for sensitive military communications earlier this year and the Pentagon’s policies on transgender troops.
During his testimony, Hegseth emphasized that the Pentagon was taking extensive precautions to safeguard American forces stationed in West Asia. “Maximum force protection” is being implemented, he confirmed. However, he made it clear that the decision to escalate militarily rested solely with President Trump.
One potential course of action under discussion is the provision of a powerful “bunker buster” bomb to Israel. Such a weapon would enable Israeli forces to strike deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. However, deploying this bomb would necessitate the involvement of a U.S. B-2 stealth bomber and its pilot, a step that would bring the United States directly into the conflict. Hegseth offered no details about whether such an action was imminent or likely.
Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly rejected the notion of surrender. In a stern warning aimed at Washington, he vowed never to capitulate and cautioned that U.S. intervention could lead to severe consequences. Khamenei stated that Iran would “never surrender” and warned of “irreparable damage” should the United States choose to get involved in the confrontation.
Trump’s rhetoric and the White House’s increased openness to military involvement underscore the shifting dynamics in U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. The administration, once focused on re-negotiating nuclear terms, is now appearing more inclined toward the use of force. Yet even as he threatens military options, Trump continues to leave the door to diplomacy ajar, albeit narrowly.
By highlighting Iran’s proposed diplomatic outreach, Trump portrays the regime as desperate and vulnerable, yet at the same time, he emphasizes that any resolution would come on America’s terms. This dual strategy of pressure and ambiguity—while maintaining a veneer of openness to negotiation—reflects a characteristic Trumpian approach to foreign crises.
The possibility of U.S. engagement in Israeli military actions represents a dramatic escalation in regional tensions. It would also mark a decisive turn from previous American positions that often aimed to avoid direct conflict in the Middle East. Now, as Israel intensifies its campaign and Iran signals a potential willingness to talk, the world watches closely to see whether Trump’s next move will be diplomatic, military, or—as is often the case with him—something entirely unpredictable.