Trump to NYT: US Will Demand 20% of Regional Revenue or Resume Strikes if Iran Deal Fails

The 60-Day Ultimatum

President Trump has established a clear deadline for the ongoing negotiations with the Islamic Republic. According to material reviewed by The Zioneer Intelligence Desk, the President warned that the current window for diplomacy will close in 60 days. If a comprehensive deal is not reached by that point, the U.S. is prepared to resume the kinetic campaign that characterized late February.

Trump’s proposed alternative to renewed warfare is a transactional security arrangement. Under this "guardian" model, the United States would provide regional stability and security in exchange for a 20% share of Middle Eastern revenues. This reflects the President's long-standing "America First" approach, treating military presence as a service for which regional partners must compensate Washington.

The Nuclear Framework

Regarding the technical aspects of the emerging deal, Trump indicated that the negotiations center on a 15-to-20-year suspension of high-level enrichment. The agreement would reportedly allow Iran to continue enriching uranium only at very low levels, insufficient for military use or the production of nuclear weapons. This framework aims to ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains permanently open and "toll-free," a key U.S. strategic interest following recent maritime blockades by the IRGC.

Friction with Jerusalem

In the interview, Trump did not shy away from criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, describing him as "very difficult to deal with." The President claimed that recent Israeli strikes nearly compromised the final negotiations with Tehran. Despite this friction, Trump insisted that Netanyahu should be "very grateful," asserting that without American intervention and the subsequent maritime siege, Iran would have already achieved nuclear status, threatening Israel's existence.

As the 60-day clock begins, the region remains in a state of high tension. While the U.S. signals a preference for a diplomatic and transactional resolution, the threat of renewed military action remains the primary leverage in Washington’s effort to reshape the Middle Eastern security architecture.