Washington (Web Desk/Agencies): US President Donald Trump on Wednesday intensified pressure on Iran regarding a possible nuclear agreement, urging Tehran to act quickly and warning it against continued delays.
Posting on his Truth Social account, he said: “Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon,” Trump threatened on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday. He further added a sharply worded remark, stating: “No more Mr. nice guy!”
The post was accompanied by an AI-generated image showing Trump in a black suit and sunglasses, holding a firearm, with explosions visible across an Iranian landscape in the background, further amplifying the confrontational tone.
The United States and Israel had earlier launched a joint military offensive against Iran on February 28, prompting Tehran to retaliate with strikes targeting what it described as American-linked interests across the region, particularly in Gulf states.
A ceasefire was later declared on April 8 through mediation involving Pakistan, followed by negotiations hosted in Islamabad on April 11 and 12. However, those discussions concluded without any breakthrough or final agreement. Trump subsequently stated that the ceasefire had been extended at Pakistan’s request, pending a new proposal from Tehran.
By Monday, the US president indicated skepticism toward Iran’s latest diplomatic initiative, which reportedly suggested reopening the Strait of Hormuz while postponing detailed discussion on its nuclear programme to a later stage.
According to US officials cited by the Wall Street Journal, Trump directed his team to explore the possibility of prolonged restrictions on Iranian ports as part of a broader pressure strategy. The report added that Washington was weighing continued economic and oil-export pressure on Tehran, as alternative options such as renewed airstrikes or disengagement were seen as carrying higher political and strategic risks.
Iran, for its part, has been seeking recognition of its right to enrich uranium for what it maintains are peaceful civilian objectives. The country is believed to hold around 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60%, a level that could be further refined for weapons use if increased.
Iranian officials recently claimed that the country could endure any blockade scenario by relying on alternative trade routes, insisting that the conflict should not be considered resolved.
Meanwhile, its latest diplomatic proposal reportedly called for nuclear discussions to be deferred until after a formal end to hostilities and resolution of maritime disputes, a condition that does not align with Washington’s demand to address the nuclear issue at the outset.
At the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) open briefing on the Middle East on April 28 in New York, Iranian envoy Saeed Iravani strongly criticized Israel and the situation in Gaza.
He said: "Gaza remains devastated and under siege. Israel, the occupying regime, continues to violate the ceasefire through military attacks and severe restrictions on humanitarian access, deepening hunger and civilian suffering,"
He further stated: "At the same time, illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank continues in clear violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, further entrenching occupation and instability."
He called for firm international intervention, adding: "The Security Council must act decisively to compel Israel to fully uphold the ceasefire in Lebanon, immediately halt all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, and withdraw all its occupying forces."
He also emphasized accountability, saying: "The United States and the Israeli regime must bear full responsibility and must be held accountable. Individual criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity must be pursued in accordance with international law."
Meanwhile, two months into the ongoing conflict, reports suggest Iran’s internal power structure has undergone significant shifts, with traditional clerical authority weakened following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the emergence of a more security-driven decision-making system led largely by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Power is now believed to be concentrated within the Supreme National Security Council and military leadership circles, rather than a single unquestioned authority.
A senior Pakistani official involved in mediation efforts told reporters that Iran’s decision-making process appears slow and fragmented, saying, “The Iranians are painfully slow in their response,” and adding that “There is apparently no one decision-making command structure. At times, it takes them 2 to 3 days to respond.”
Observers note that the core dispute in negotiations is not internal disagreement within Iran but rather the widening gap between US demands and the terms acceptable to Iran’s security establishment.
Iran’s diplomatic engagement has been led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, alongside other senior political figures, while key influence on the ground is reportedly exercised by senior IRGC leadership.
According to analysts and regional sources, Iran has submitted a revised proposal to Washington suggesting a phased negotiation process, beginning with resolution of the conflict and maritime tensions before addressing nuclear issues.
However, the US continues to insist that the nuclear file must be prioritized from the beginning.
Former US diplomat Alan Eyre summarized the deadlock by saying, “Neither side wants to negotiate,” noting that both Washington and Tehran believe time is working in their favor, whether through economic pressure or strategic leverage.
Experts argue that neither side currently has the political flexibility to compromise.
Despite sustained pressure, there are no clear signs of internal fragmentation within Iran or public dissent strong enough to alter the current strategic direction.
As the situation continues, analysts suggest that Iran’s leadership has largely consolidated around a security-first approach, prioritizing deterrence, regional influence, and economic endurance while avoiding direct collapse or escalation into full-scale war.