ShareSaveLyse DoucetChief international correspondent ShareSaveEPADonald Trump says he prefers to do a deal with Iran rather than unleash a deadly warIn a world on edge waiting to see what US President Donald Trump does next in the Middle East, he provided no clear signal when he presented the longest ever State of the Union address.
The world's most powerful commander-in-chief decided not to make his comprehensive case for possible military action against Iran during the biggest build-up of American might in the Middle East since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
Two decades ago, President George W Bush had travelled across America, and beyond, to lay the groundwork for what turned into a major military intervention, albeit one based on faulty intelligence.
Trump may have decided it was not an issue to broach when his political base, who elected him to stay out of forever wars, is far more focused on the state of the economy and the fight on immigration just months before crucial midterm polls.
Or it may reflect his repeated claim that he has yet to make up his own mind about which path to pursue. He continues to say he prefers to do a deal rather than unleash a deadly war.
The next crucial round of negotiations - the third this month - in Geneva on Thursday is expected to be pivotal to his decision-making.
"If President Trump does not receive, through his envoys, an acceptable text from Tehran, he's likely to order some form of military action soon after," assessed a diplomat who's been briefed on this process.
Trump's State of the Union speech - at a glance
Iran ready to discuss compromises to reach nuclear deal, minister tells BBC in Tehran
Lyse Doucet: In Tehran, rallies for Iran's revolution overshadowed by discontent and defiance
The president who has repeatedly changed his messaging on his end game in Iran - veering from narrow nuclear issues to wider regime change - highlighted one of his consistent demands in his speech: "We haven't heard from them those secret words: 'We do not want nuclear weapons ever'."
Yet, just hours earlier, Iran's foreign minister and top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, reiterated on X almost that exact phrase: "Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon."
It's the convincing proof, to allay suspicion that Tehran has been moving in that direction, that is a key issue in the ongoing talks mediated by the Gulf state of Oman.
Iran has indicated it is ready to compromise on its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of the sanctions crippling its economy.
It was spiralling prices and a collapsing currency that sparked a wave of unrest in January put down with immense force.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) has put its confirmed death toll at more than 7,000, including 6,488 protesters, and is still investigating reports of thousands more deaths. The Iranian government insists that figure is around 3,100.
In his speech, Trump said it appeared the authorities had "killed at least, it looks like, 32,000 protesters".
Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baqai immediately denounced the president's remarks on the death toll as "big lies".
Trump also raised, for the first time, the charge that Iran was "working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States". He seemed to suggest that this was another red line.
Iran has repeatedly rejected the inclusion of its ballistic missile programme in the negotiations.
"When we were attacked by Israelis and Americans, our missiles came to our rescue so how can we accept depriving ourselves of our defensive capabilities," deputy foreign minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi, a leading member of the negotiating team, told the BBC in an interview in Tehran this month.
This next round, involving Trump's top envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, are expected to provide greater clarity about where the gaps lie, and whether they can be closed. Both sides know the clock is counting down.
"Washington and Tehran have been locked in last ditch diplomacy for decades," remarks Ellie Geranmayeh, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
"What's different now is the largest ever American military build-up against Iran, a proven willingness by both sides to go head to head, and the worst crisis of legitimacy for the Islamic Republic including the threat of regime change."
There are clear differences in this round of talks compared to the five rounds last year shattered by Israel's attack on Iran, which turned into a 12-day war and saw the US carry out strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites.
