Since the beginning of this year, discussion has not ceased over the possibility of a military strike on Iran. This has persisted even as rounds of negotiations have been held between the two sides, leaving uncertainty as the dominant reality. The American president alone appears to hold the code or the zero hour.
As soon as Donald Trump completed the first year of his second term, he returned to escalating his rhetoric, speaking both implicitly and explicitly about the possibility of launching a military strike on Iran. He had already done so when he dispatched heavy bombers to target Iranian territory during the final three days of what became known as the 12 Day War between Israel and Iran in June last year.
At the time, Trump stated that the Iranian nuclear facilities targeted by American strikes had been “completely destroyed”. He reiterated that claim the following month in response to a report by NBC suggesting that some of those sites had largely withstood the attack.
Despite this, Washington has once again revived warnings about what it describes as a nuclear and missile threat posed by Iran. Over recent weeks, a succession of statements and positions has generated concern not only across the Middle East, but arguably far beyond the region.
No One Knows
What stands out in Trump’s wars is the impossibility of speaking with certainty about what might occur. A review of statements issued over recent weeks confirms this. Within a matter of days, even within the same day, reports may emerge suggesting that mobilisation for an imminent strike is underway, only to be followed by talk of advancing negotiations.
If further evidence is required, Axios today cited a senior, unnamed American official who stated that even the president’s closest advisers do not know what decision he will ultimately take or when.
One of Trump’s senior advisers reportedly told Axios, “The president has not yet decided to launch an attack. I know that because we have not launched one. He may never do it. He may wake up tomorrow and say, that is it.”
This aligns with remarks by White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, who said, “The media may continue to speculate about the president’s thinking as they wish, but President Trump alone knows what he may or may not do.”
What Is Happening?
Beginning with the latest developments in an attempt to understand what is unfolding, a task that has become increasingly elusive, Axios reported what at first glance appeared to be new information. On closer examination, however, the remarks amounted to little more than a repetition of options already discussed many times.
According to the unnamed official, “Trump has not yet decided to launch an attack on Iran, but he is keeping his options open and could decide at any moment.”
The statement continued in similarly ambiguous terms. Washington, it said, would be prepared to accept a proposal allowing Iran to enrich uranium, provided that it remains symbolic and does not assist Iran in acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The official added, “The Iranians must present an offer we cannot refuse if they wish to prevent an attack,” noting that President Trump would be prepared to accept a substantive agreement that could be politically marketed domestically.
Yet the latest leak leaves core questions unanswered. Will the United States launch a military attack on Iran? If so, what would be the scope and objectives? Or is Washington assembling forces and hardening its positions merely to pressure Tehran into accepting an agreement satisfactory to American and Israeli interests?
A Demonstrative Build Up?
Many observers question whether the extensive American military buildup is simply a pressure tactic to compel Iran to accept an agreement severely restricting its nuclear and even missile capabilities.
However, numerous analysts argue that a global superpower does not require such an expansive and costly mobilisation merely to exert pressure.
News agencies have cited experts and former Pentagon officials who believe that the scale and speed of the reinforcements make a strike more likely than at any previous point.
According to reports, the American deployment in the Middle East is the largest since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It includes advanced F 35 and F 22 stealth fighters, F 16 and F 15 aircraft, AWACS early warning planes, battlefield communications aircraft, support and command aircraft, and air defence systems.
At sea, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is positioned near Iran, supported by destroyers capable of intercepting ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, the USS Gerald Ford has sailed from the western Atlantic towards the region, bringing the number of American combat vessels in the area to 13, according to US Navy officials.
An analysis by the Financial Times suggests Washington has deployed sufficient force to conduct a sustained air campaign lasting weeks, including significant logistical movements involving 39 aerial refuelling tankers and 29 heavy transport aircraft.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the nature of the buildup indicates readiness for an option beyond a limited strike such as the one carried out in June against three Iranian nuclear sites, and instead points towards a prolonged air campaign.
Officials cited by the newspaper said these capabilities provide Washington with the option of sustained air warfare rather than a single rapid operation.
What Might War Look Like?
In assessing Trump’s options and what it termed a “Third Gulf War”, Newsweek stated that any attack authorised by the American president would exceed the scale of last summer’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The magazine indicated that Trump has multiple options, including renewed targeted strikes, assassinations of senior Iranian leaders, or a long-term military campaign resembling a third Gulf War.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump has received a series of military briefings outlining options ranging from focused strikes on nuclear and ballistic missile facilities to a broader campaign aimed at paralysing Iran’s political and military leadership and potentially pushing the regime towards collapse.
Sources also spoke of scenarios involving the targeting of dozens of political and military leaders under what is known as a “decapitation strategy”. The same sources warned that such an approach carries significant risks and could require an intensive air campaign lasting weeks or months, with uncertain political outcomes.
Israeli Readiness
In the American posture towards Iran, Israel remains a constant presence, whether as a central actor or an influence operating behind the scenes.
Observers note Israel’s consistent efforts to heat up the front with Iran and to push Washington towards military action aimed at dismantling Iran’s military capabilities.
The New York Times recently reported that Israel, a principal party in the 12 Day War in June, is not merely an observer but a key partner in planning, closely monitoring developments and pressing for renewed military action to curtail Iran’s missile capacity.
Israeli media have confirmed that Tel Aviv has raised its level of military readiness and held intensive security meetings in anticipation of a potential joint strike with the United States.
Military officials cited in Israeli reports said preparations are underway for a joint strike intended to “paralyse” Iran’s ability to launch missiles towards Israel.
Yedioth Ahronoth stated that the “zero hour is approaching”, with possible timelines for confrontation shrinking from weeks to “a few days”.
Israel’s public broadcaster reported that Tel Aviv is preparing for multiple scenarios, including the possibility of an Iranian preemptive strike. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously threatened what he described as a surprise strike should Iran attack Israel.
The Wall Street Journal noted that Israel seeks the complete elimination of Iranian ballistic missile production, a central point of contention in negotiations, as Iran lacks a modern air force and relies heavily on its missile capabilities as a defensive shield.
Fears of Igniting the Middle East
Approximately one month ago, American rhetoric towards Iran reached a peak before Trump unexpectedly spoke of stepping back from a strike.
Reports indicated that regional states expressed concern over the consequences of such a war. There were also reports that Israel requested a delay to complete its preparations. Trump himself said he had responded to external pressures before reversing course the following day, stating, “No one convinced me. I convinced myself.”
Fears across the region, and perhaps globally, carry considerable weight given the lack of clarity regarding American objectives. Is the goal to weaken Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, deter escalation, or pursue regime change?
Regional and European officials have expressed scepticism about the capacity of military action to alter the trajectory of Iran’s leadership under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, protected by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In the absence of a clear alternative political force within Iran and with the leadership demonstrating resilience, officials warn that assuming strikes would lead to regime collapse is fraught with danger.
They stress that the principal risk lies in ambiguity, as initiating military action is easier than controlling it, while transforming it into a strategic outcome is far more difficult.
American Domestic Calculations
Domestic considerations remain significant, particularly as the US midterm elections approach.
The New York Times reported that a potential American attack on Iran would be far more complex than the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and could draw the United States into a prolonged conflict.
The newspaper added that Gulf states hosting American bases fear retaliatory consequences, and that a potential response from the Houthis in Yemen, especially in the Red Sea, must be taken into account.
Reuters reported that Trump is pushing the country towards the brink of war, while some aides urge him to focus on economic concerns of voters, highlighting the political risks of escalation before the midterm elections.
The agency noted that although Trump has ordered substantial reinforcements in the Middle East and preparations for a possible air campaign lasting weeks, he has not detailed to the American public why he is steering the country towards its most aggressive posture against the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.
Trump’s focus on Iran represents, according to observers, the clearest example thus far of how foreign policy, including the expanded use of military force, has dominated the first thirteen months of his second term, often overshadowing domestic concerns such as the cost of living.
A senior White House official stated that despite Trump’s aggressive rhetoric, there is no unified support within the administration for proceeding with an attack on Iran.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, added that advisers recognise the need to avoid sending a confusing message to undecided voters who prioritise economic issues.
White House advisers and Republican campaign officials want Trump to focus on the economy, which was reaffirmed as the most important campaign issue during a recent briefing attended by cabinet members.
Meanwhile, the US Congress is preparing for a possible vote within days on a resolution that would restrict the president’s ability to launch an attack on Iran without prior authorisation from lawmakers.
Members of Congress from both parties have previously attempted to pass measures preventing Trump from undertaking military action against foreign governments without legislative approval, but such efforts have failed.
Under the US Constitution, Congress, not the president, holds the authority to send American forces to war, except in limited cases involving national security.
Iran’s Position
Tehran, for its part, has not remained passive. Iranian officials continue to insist on retaining nuclear capabilities, refuse to discuss ballistic missiles, and deny planning to build a nuclear weapons arsenal.
In response to American threats, Iran has warned it would respond “firmly and proportionately” to any military aggression, declaring that all military bases and facilities of the attacking force in the region would be considered legitimate targets within its defensive response.
Satellite imagery has shown defensive movements aimed at fortifying nuclear facilities, alongside joint naval exercises with Russia, underscoring the heightened tensions in the region.
Newsweek noted that Iran possesses the largest missile and drone arsenal in the region, posing a significant threat in the event of conflict. It was observed that Iran expanded its missile arsenal considerably in response to Israeli attacks in June 2025.
According to the magazine, Iranian missiles have a maximum range of at least 2,000 kilometres, placing the entire Middle East and parts of south eastern Europe within reach.
The Wall Street Journal described a system preparing for its most serious military threat since 1988.
Beyond diplomatic threats, Iran has begun implementing what is described as a “mosaic defence” strategy, granting field commanders broader authority in decision making to reduce the impact of strikes targeting central leadership and to ensure continuity of operations if command chains are disrupted.
In a display of force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps deployed naval units in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of global oil supplies pass. Iranian media broadcast footage of cruise missile launches from land and sea, demonstrating its capacity to threaten international shipping.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that “more dangerous than American ships is the weapon capable of sinking them”, indicating that any war would not be confined to land and air.
