US President Donald Trump is growing “more and more less confident” in his ability to strike a deal with Iran over its nuclear programme, as tensions between Tel Aviv and Tehran flare up dangerously close to open conflict.

On Thursday, further escalating tensions, Trump announced the withdrawal of nonessential personnel from US military bases in the region, citing that “it could be a dangerous place”. When asked the rationale behind the move, Trump offered a vague response: “Well, you’re going to have to figure that one out yourself.”

The US president's ambiguous language, including “we’ll see what happens” has fuelled speculation that a long-anticipated Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be underway.

“Tensions are rising, especially with Iran, as nuclear talks stall and fears grow that Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear sites. If that happens, Iran is expected to hit back, possibly targeting American forces or embassies nearby,” says Aimen Jamil, an Islamabad-based expert on Iran.

Multiple American and European sources have warned that an Israeli attack on Iran could be imminent. Tehran has issued stark warnings, promising that adversaries “will certainly suffer heavier casualties” if they attack.

“In that case, the US will have no choice but to leave the region, as all of its bases are within the reach of the Iranian military and they will not hesitate to target all of them in their host countries,” said Iranian Defence Minister Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh.

Commenting on the withdrawal of nonessential personnel, Jamil tells TRT World: “This evacuation is both a safety measure and a warning signal. It shows that Washington is preparing for a worst-case scenario without jumping into action yet. At the same time, this move pressures Iran by signalling that the US sees the situation as serious, and it could either lead to renewed diplomacy or push things closer to conflict.”

Dan Steinbock, author of The Fall of Israel and an internationally-acclaimed political economics analyst, sees Washington’s move as “a misguided negotiating tactic to raise stakes in order to boost the Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran.”

An Iranian source with extensive experience in past nuclear negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity described the US evacuation order as an old-fashioned tactic to gain more leverage at the negotiation table.

“They do not dare to attack. If so, the NPT is dead,” he tells TRT World, referring to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. 

“In part, it is a self-defeating pretext to let Israel pave the way to still another unwarranted proxy war and significant regional escalation,” Steinbock tells TRT World.

Boaz Atzili, professor of Foreign Policy and Global Security at Washinton DC’s American University, outlines three possible outcomes from Trump’s Middle East evacuation. 

One involves direct Israeli military action against Iran, with potential US support. Another sees Washington using the threat of confrontation as a bargaining chip to pressure Iran into backing away from the nuclear threshold. 

The third is a combination of the two where “the US hopes that the threat will get Iran to back down, but is willing to let Israel act in a limited way if Iran is not moving in the right direction,” the professor tells TRT World. 

According to Alon Liel, the former director general of the Israeli foreign ministry, the Netanyahu government is escalating tensions with Iran in an attempt to divert international attention from what’s going on in Gaza, a catastrophe, the “very unpleasant pictures” of which unsettle the Israeli government deeply. 

“There is an attempt to spin and divert attention from Gaza to other things like Iran,” Liel tells TRT World. But “the real big story is going on in Gaza,” he says. “It’s horrible and terrible things are being done, but the world is not stopping us. I hope the war will stop immediately.” 

Have nuclear negotiations failed? 

Prior to the current flare-up between Israel and Iran, nuclear negotiations led by the Trump administration had shown tentative progress, with both Washington and Tehran expressing optimism.

Trump had previously warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against striking Iran, citing potential breakthroughs. But the president now appears resigned to a potential confrontation. Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon,” he recently said.

“What started as a diplomatic effort is quickly turning into a dangerous standoff. The early hope was based on political will, but the deeper differences and outside pressure have taken over,” says Jamil.

Opposition to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has long been strong among Israeli leaders and their allies in Washington. It was this coalition that helped drive the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-era accord that restricted Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.

“The talks are stuck. The main issue is enrichment: Iran wants to keep enriching uranium for peaceful use, while the US wants that stopped altogether,” Jamil says.

This morning, the Board of Governors of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – representing 35 countries – passed a resolution stating that Iran’s nuclear programme is not in compliance with its obligations under the NPT. The resolution was introduced by the US, UK, France, and Germany.

Despite plans for US and Iranian delegations to meet this weekend in Oman, the resolution’s timing, and its backing by Washington, suggests that the nuclear talks may be nearing collapse.

While the US acknowledges that it has no real evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, President Trump likes to foster "strategic tension," which is then exploited as a pretext for elevated militarisation, in the name of an "international rules-based order", according to Steinbock. 

Steinbock warns that “For all practical purposes, such efforts amount to playing with fire - among major nuclear powers.” 

The IAEA resolution may also set the stage for the UN Security Council to reimpose sanctions lifted under the JCPOA, using the deal’s controversial snapback mechanism.

Tehran has responded to the IAEA decision, announcing plans to further enrich uranium and to open a new facility. Tehran also threatened that if Western states trigger the snapback clause, it will withdraw from the NPT and deport UN nuclear inspectors.

Will Israel strike Iran?

Both experts concur that Israel is unlikely to attack without at least tacit approval from the Trump administration, given the potentially “extraordinarily high” regional consequences.

“The possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure cannot be dismissed, particularly as Tel Aviv views the current geopolitical moment marked by weakened Iranian air defences and stalled US-Iran negotiations as a rare strategic opportunity,” says Jamil.

Despite Israel’s formidable military strength, it faces “logistical constraints”, lacking the “bunker-busting” capabilities needed to destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear sites. “To fully dismantle Iran’s underground facilities”, Jamil adds, Israel would likely require US support.

“As in Gaza, Israel would pull the trigger, but with weapons and financing by the US and its Western European allies,” says Steinbock.

Iran, a major oil producer, has already stated that it would strike back Israel as well as US bases if faced with an Israeli attack, which might also lead to disruption of oil supplies. 

“While some Israeli rhetoric may be aimed at increasing pressure on both Washington and Tehran, the risks of miscalculation are dangerously high, and the region remains on edge,” says Jamil. 

“If the US and the international community were to allow an Israeli strike in Iran, the repercussions of that failure will prove very high and long-lasting not just to Iran, but to Israel and the US, and the global economic, political and military prospects,” says Steinbock.