The nighttime address of US President Donald Trump to Congress became the longest in the history of such speeches — almost two hours. Formally — the annual message “On the State of the Union.” In fact — a strategic statement on the boundaries of what is permissible for Iran and a demonstration of strength against the backdrop of tensions in the Middle East.
However, in this speech, there was not only what was said. There was also what was not said — and this became one of the most discussed moments.
Iran: diplomacy is possible, but there will be no nuclear weapons
Trump formulated the position harshly:
“I prefer to solve problems with diplomacy when possible. But I will not allow the number one source of world terrorism to obtain nuclear weapons.”
According to the president, the US is negotiating with Tehran, but the key formula has not been heard:
“We did not hear the magic words: ‘we will never have nuclear weapons.'”
This phrase became central. The absence of a direct renunciation of nuclear weapons, according to Trump, undermines trust. He recalled the June strike on Iran, stating that the US “destroyed the Iranian nuclear program” at that time, and emphasized:
“No country should doubt America’s resolve.”
Ballistic missiles as a factor of pressure
The president specifically focused on Iran’s missile program:
“Iran has already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and American bases, and is also working on creating missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”
He linked these words with the overall line of the speech — a demonstration of readiness to act if necessary. The formulation of “massive concentration of forces in the Middle East” sounded like a warning.
For Israel, this block has direct significance. Iran’s missile infrastructure remains one of the key factors of regional instability.
Israel, Hamas, and protests in Iran
One of the most unexpected statements was the phrase:
“Believe it or not, but Hamas worked together with Israel to find hostages.”
Trump claimed that militants “dug, excavated, went through hundreds of bodies,” searching for dead and living hostages. Israel was also mentioned in the context of gratitude to mediators for the release of captives and progress towards ending the war in Gaza.
Separately, the president made an extremely harsh statement about the protests in Iran:
“In recent months, they have killed at least 32,000 protesters. They were shot, hanged. We stopped even more executions with our threats.”
This rhetoric strengthens the moral justification for pressure on Tehran.
It is in this context of international tension that Nikk.Agency — Israel News | Nikk.Agency analyzes the interconnection of American strategy, Israel’s security, and the Iranian factor, as Washington’s decisions directly affect the regional balance.
What was said about the US — and what was not said about Ukraine
In the internal part of the speech, Trump spoke about regaining control over the Western Hemisphere, fighting drug cartels in Latin America, tariff policy, and plans to ban corporations from massively buying housing as part of combating the housing crisis. Democrats, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, applauded the initiative to protect the “American dream.”
But in this almost two-hour speech, there was a noticeable pause — the absence of the topic of Ukraine.
The address coincided with the fourth anniversary of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Nevertheless, Trump ignored this fact and did not make a separate mention of the date, which remains symbolic for Kyiv and its allies.
This silence became an important political signal. Against the backdrop of harsh formulations on Iran, the lack of emphasis on Ukraine is perceived as a change in priorities in the public agenda.
Geopolitical conclusion
Trump repeated the key message:
“Our enemies are afraid. America is respected again.”
In fact, it was about publicly marking a “red line” for Iran. The door for a deal remains open, but the forceful scenario is legitimized in advance.
At the same time, the silence about Ukraine on the anniversary of the invasion added a new layer of interpretation to the speech. The foreign policy agenda was focused on the Middle East and the Iranian direction.
The bottom line is: diplomacy is possible, but the window of opportunity is narrowing. And the emphasis in the speech shows which threats Washington currently considers a priority.