Trump says US carried out “series of strikes inside Iran” while talks continue
Former President Donald Trump says the United States carried out a series of strikes inside Iran in recent weeks, while negotiations toward a potential peace agreement remain ongoing.
Trump told CNBC that Tehran has “agreed almost to everything we need,” and that Washington is discussing agricultural sales as part of any settlement.
He also described the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as impenetrable and said Iran would rely on American farm goods if a deal is reached.
Trump confirms strikes inside Iran in recent weeks
In an interview with CNBC, Trump said U.S. forces targeted multiple sites within Iran over the past weeks, describing the operations as deliberate and effective.
He framed the actions as part of a broader pressure campaign intended to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table, saying military steps had been coordinated with diplomatic outreach.
Trump did not provide detailed locations or operational specifics in the interview, saying only that the strikes were part of a sequence of measures taken to protect U.S. interests.
Negotiations continue and Iran ‘agreed almost to everything’
Trump said talks between Washington and Tehran are still underway and characterized progress as substantial, asserting that Iran had accepted almost all U.S. demands.
He described the discussions as pragmatic, focused on verifiable commitments and economic arrangements that would provide incentives for Iranian compliance.
The former president stressed that continued engagement would remain linked to enforcement mechanisms and guarantees to prevent future escalation.
U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz described as impenetrable
Trump portrayed the U.S. measures around the Strait of Hormuz as a highly effective containment effort, saying the blockade functioned as a “wall” that prevented vessels from reaching Iran.
He argued the naval posture denied Tehran maritime access and limited the country’s ability to leverage shipping lanes for revenue or military advantage.
Analysts note such statements underscore the strategic value Washington places on the Gulf shipping lanes and the messaging effect of naval deployments.
Agricultural sales to Iran proposed as part of a peace deal
As part of the proposed settlement, Trump suggested Iran would buy American agricultural commodities, including corn, wheat and soybeans.
He framed the move as mutually beneficial, saying U.S. farmers would gain a major new market while Iran would secure vital food imports to stabilize domestic supplies.
Trump emphasized the economic angle repeatedly, presenting agricultural trade as a tangible bargaining chip to sweeten any broader agreement.
Funding arrangements and sanctions considerations
Trump indicated Washington could channel funds to facilitate purchases, telling CNBC that some Iranian money could be used to buy U.S. farm products under a controlled arrangement.
He said the approach would allow the United States to extract concessions while ensuring that revenue flows did not immediately bolster Tehran’s military capabilities.
Such a mechanism would require careful legal and financial safeguards to reconcile existing sanctions regimes with humanitarian and commercial exemptions.
Regional security and market consequences
The announcements — combining military action claims with diplomatic negotiation — have immediate implications for regional security dynamics in the Gulf.
Statements about strikes inside Iran and a tight blockade of the Strait of Hormuz may heighten tensions while also signaling to allies and rivals how the United States might calibrate force and diplomacy.
Markets sensitive to Middle East stability, particularly energy and agricultural sectors, could react to shifts in rhetoric and the likelihood of trade resumption with Iran.
The developments described by Trump on CNBC — the claimed strikes inside Iran, the description of an impenetrable blockade and the proposed agricultural purchases — outline a blend of coercion and inducement that Washington may use to pursue its objectives.
Any move to translate these statements into policy would require legal, diplomatic and logistical steps, and would be closely watched by regional governments and global markets.
Observers say the balance between pressure and incentive will determine whether these talks yield a durable shift in U.S.-Iran relations or add a new layer of complexity to an already tense landscape.
