President Donald Trump issued a stark ultimatum to Iran from the G7 summit in Évian, France, on 17 June, declaring that the United States would resume bombing if a final peace agreement is not reached within 60 days of the forthcoming memorandum of understanding. Speaking after a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump described the document—due to be signed officially on 19 June—as merely a preliminary step. “If it’s not resolved in 60 days, no problem, we’ll go back to bombing,” he said, adding that he would not hesitate to “drop bombs right on their heads” should Tehran fail to behave. The remarks, broadcast internationally, blended praise for the deal with a raw threat: no president, he claimed, had ever been tougher on Iran.

The memorandum, announced earlier in the week, was intended to end hostilities that had disrupted global energy supplies and inflamed the Middle East. Trump confirmed that the text would be published after a signing ceremony involving Vice President J.D. Vance, but stressed that sanctions would not be lifted immediately and that the arrangement was not final. The 60-day window is designed to allow negotiations on a comprehensive accord, with Iran’s nuclear programme as the central red line. “We will never allow them to have nuclear weapons,” Trump stated, reinforcing a position that has underpinned his administration’s maximum-pressure strategy.

Viewed from Beijing, the American posture drew a contrasting response. Chinese officials reiterated that they “have always supported Iran’s reasonable and legitimate demands,” a reminder of the strategic partnership that has cushioned Tehran against Western isolation. European diplomats, gathered at the same G7 table, watched with unease as the American president’s language veered between transactional diplomacy and coercive brinkmanship. The presence of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi at the summit underscored the regional stakes, with Cairo deeply concerned about stability in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

Analysts in London note that the memorandum’s fragility is built into its design. By framing it as a non-binding understanding that can be discarded if he “doesn’t like it,” Trump retains maximum leverage but also injects profound uncertainty. The 60-day clock, ticking from the signing ceremony, places immense pressure on Iranian negotiators who must navigate domestic hardliners while facing the explicit threat of renewed aerial bombardment. The Italian press captured Trump’s almost casual reference to the destructive power of bombing, a rhetorical escalation that risks normalising the use of force as a routine bargaining tool.

Looking ahead, the path from memorandum to durable treaty is strewn with obstacles. Iran is unlikely to accept a deal dictated under the shadow of bombs, and its leadership has historically resisted ultimatums. The next two months will test whether the diplomatic track can survive the president’s combative style, or whether the region will once again hear the sound of explosions. For now, the world is left to parse a peace process that carries within it the explicit threat of its own violent collapse.