The Pentagon is preparing options for a renewed major military campaign against Iran, including potential strikes on missile and drone arsenals, energy infrastructure and Revolutionary Guard facilities, even as US President Donald Trump remains hesitant to reignite the war.
According to The New York Times, which cited American officials familiar with the military planning, the United States is assembling a substantial concentration of military power in the Middle East, with three aircraft carriers expected to be deployed to the region by the end of October.
The Pentagon has prepared plans at Trump’s direction to strike Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, energy facilities and other military targets. However, the president has repeatedly declined to authorise major operations despite proposals presented by his national security advisers.
Over recent months, Trump’s national security team and the Department of War have submitted five proposals for large-scale military operations against Iran or the Houthis. On each occasion, Trump rejected the plans.
The continued military preparations reflect Washington’s effort to preserve the option of renewed attacks while the administration weighs the consequences of another confrontation with Tehran.
A Three-Day Military Campaign Under Consideration
Sources familiar with the latest proposal told The New York Times that Trump had reactivated military strike options previously considered by his administration.
Senior national security officials, led by Vice President JD Vance, discussed the plans during a meeting at Camp David last Friday.
The proposed operation centres on a short but intensive military campaign lasting approximately three days.
According to officials familiar with the discussions, the primary targets would be Iran’s missile and drone arsenals, much of which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has rebuilt since the early stages of the war.
Additional targets under consideration include Iranian energy installations, military command centres and Revolutionary Guard headquarters.
The proposed campaign would therefore extend beyond immediate military threats to include infrastructure of strategic importance to Iran.
Nevertheless, the preparation of military options does not mean Trump has decided to authorise them. His advisers remain divided over whether renewed strikes could produce the political and military results Washington is seeking.
Diplomatic Negotiations Continue Despite Nuclear Dispute
American officials acknowledged Trump’s assessment that some progress is being made in diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.
The talks have continued through intermediaries, providing a channel for negotiations despite the ongoing military confrontation and threats of renewed attacks.
However, a fundamental disagreement over Iran’s nuclear programme continues to obstruct progress.
Washington wants an agreement addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions to be reached first, before other outstanding matters are resolved.
Iranian negotiators, by contrast, insist that discussions concerning the nuclear programme should come at the end of the negotiating process.
This disagreement over the order of negotiations remains a central obstacle to reaching an agreement.
The diplomatic impasse has contributed to uncertainty within the Trump administration over whether additional economic pressure, continued negotiations or renewed military action would be more effective in securing concessions from Tehran.
Iran’s Military Tactics Have Become More Effective
The New York Times reported that Iran has become a more capable military adversary over recent months, with improvements in its tactics complicating American defensive operations.
According to US officials, intercepting Iranian missiles now requires a greater number of defensive interceptors than during the early stages of the war.
The increased demand has placed additional pressure on American ammunition stockpiles already strained by months of military operations.
At the beginning of the war, the US military generally fired two interceptors at incoming Iranian missiles, concentrating its defensive efforts on the most dangerous missile barrages.
However, officials now say improvements in Iran’s targeting accuracy and attack tactics have forced American forces and their regional partners to launch more interceptors to protect US military bases.
The growing demand for defensive ammunition has become a significant concern for American commanders, who must balance immediate operational requirements against the need to maintain sufficient reserves for other potential military contingencies.
According to sources familiar with intelligence assessments, Iran has also improved its ability to target American military bases by using satellite imagery supplied by Chinese companies.
The intelligence indicates that access to commercially provided satellite images has helped Tehran conduct more effective attacks against US installations.
These developments have complicated Washington’s calculations, particularly as American officials consider whether another military campaign could weaken Iran’s capabilities without exposing US forces to further retaliation.
Iranian Attacks on Shipping Continue Without Major US Retaliation
Iranian attacks on maritime shipping have continued since September, when the two sides last engaged in a major exchange of retaliatory strikes.
According to a British naval monitoring group cited by The New York Times, Iran has attacked at least 13 vessels since that period.
Intelligence assessments suggest the actual number may be higher, approaching 20 vessels, according to sources familiar with the information.
None of these attacks has prompted a major American military response.
Although oil exports from the Middle East have been increasing, the continued attacks have heightened concerns among shipping companies and raised questions about the reliability of future energy shipments.
During the summer, the US military regularly responded to Iranian attacks against international shipping.
Since then, however, the American response has become considerably more restrained.
According to officials cited by the newspaper, the change reflects Trump’s reluctance to fully reignite the war with Iran.
The United States has continued intercepting Iranian drones and cruise missiles, but it has avoided attacking Iran’s oil tanker fleet or launching retaliatory strikes inside Iranian territory.
The restrained response comes as Washington seeks to maintain pressure on Tehran without triggering another major round of military confrontation.
US Commanders Concerned About Vulnerable Regional Bases
American military leaders are increasingly concerned about the difficulty of defending bases hosting US forces across the Middle East.
The threat extends beyond military installations to include energy facilities and other civilian infrastructure in the region.
According to US officials, Iran’s improving tactics have complicated efforts to intercept missiles and drones before they reach their targets.
The growing effectiveness of Iranian attacks has also increased the amount of defensive ammunition required to protect American personnel and infrastructure.
The pressure is particularly significant because US Central Command must maintain defensive capabilities across several countries while also supporting broader American military operations.
The New York Times reported that the war has already depleted stocks of air defence interceptors, forcing Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, to draw on weapons from Europe and Asia.
Although American military commanders maintain that interceptor supplies remain available, the continued consumption of defensive ammunition has raised concerns about the sustainability of prolonged operations.
Senior officials are also worried about the wider depletion of American defensive weapons inventories, particularly systems required to protect military bases against Iranian attacks.
These concerns are influencing discussions about whether the United States should resume offensive operations against Iran while its own regional defences remain under considerable pressure.
Trump’s Advisers Question Whether Further Strikes Would Change Iran’s Position
The debate within the Trump administration is not limited to the military feasibility of another operation.
According to The New York Times, people close to the president are increasingly questioning whether additional military action would fundamentally change Tehran’s calculations or strategic plans.
Some officials believe that renewed strikes could inflict further damage without necessarily compelling Iran to alter its position.
Others argue that the administration’s campaign of economic pressure is beginning to produce results and should be given more time.
Supporters of this approach believe sustained economic pressure could eventually force Tehran to make tangible concessions without requiring another major military campaign.
The disagreement reflects competing assessments within the administration over how best to influence Iranian decision-making.
While some advisers favour allowing diplomacy and economic pressure to continue, others see military action as a means of exploiting Iran’s economic vulnerabilities.
Supporters of Military Action See an Opportunity to Increase Pressure
Officials who support resuming major military operations argue that Iran’s economy continues to weaken.
According to current and former American officials, advocates of renewed strikes believe a short, intensive bombing campaign could worsen Tehran’s economic difficulties.
They argue that the impact could be particularly severe if American attacks damaged Iran’s ability to maintain control over the strategically important strait.
From this perspective, a concentrated military campaign could combine direct damage to Iran’s military capabilities with additional economic pressure.
However, the effectiveness of such a strategy remains disputed among Trump’s advisers.
Some officials are unconvinced that another round of bombardment would force Tehran to change its policies, particularly given Iran’s demonstrated ability to rebuild military capabilities and adapt its tactics during the conflict.
The unresolved debate has contributed to Trump’s hesitation over approving a new operation.
Israeli and US Elections Influence the Timing of a Possible Attack
Electoral considerations are also affecting Washington’s military calculations.
Trump has indicated that no new strike would take place before the November elections.
Even before that statement, American officials had expected the president to delay any decision until after Israel’s elections on 27 October and the US midterm elections scheduled for the following week.
According to The New York Times, officials believe Trump may wait until both electoral contests have concluded before deciding whether to authorise another military campaign.
However, there is no certainty that he will approve new attacks even after the elections.
The decision remains dependent on several factors, including the diplomatic negotiations, the effectiveness of economic pressure and the risks associated with renewed Iranian retaliation.
American military commanders are nevertheless preparing for the possibility that Trump could change his position.
According to officials, US forces would be ready to launch larger operations in the coming days if the president reversed his current stance.
Three US Aircraft Carriers to Assemble in the Middle East
The scale of Washington’s military preparations is reflected in the planned deployment of three aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East.
The USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group departed San Diego last week and is expected to join the USS George H.W. Bush and USS George Washington by the end of October.
Each carrier strike group includes additional warships, with supporting capabilities that include attack helicopters and Marine forces.
According to The New York Times, the deployment would mark the first time since 2003 that three American aircraft carriers have been present in the Middle East simultaneously.
By the end of the month, the combined force is expected to include more than 20,000 sailors and Marines, alongside hundreds of military aircraft.
The deployment would provide Washington with substantial offensive capabilities should Trump authorise renewed operations against Iran.
However, the unusually large concentration of forces is expected to be temporary.
The George Washington is scheduled to return to its base in Japan after the Roosevelt arrives to replace it as part of the planned rotation.
The military build-up therefore provides Washington with an expanded range of immediate options without necessarily signalling a decision to begin another war.
Depleted Air Defences Complicate Washington’s Military Options
Despite the reinforcement of American forces, senior US officials remain concerned about the consequences of another confrontation with Iran.
One of the most pressing problems is the depletion of defensive weapons needed to protect American military bases throughout the Middle East.
The New York Times reported that Iranian improvements in missile tactics and targeting accuracy have increased the defensive resources required to stop attacks.
Where American forces previously relied on firing two interceptors at incoming Iranian missiles in many engagements, they now frequently require greater numbers to counter more effective attacks.
This has added pressure to an already strained inventory of air defence ammunition.
US Central Command has consequently drawn on weapons stocks from Europe and Asia to sustain its defensive operations.
The challenge is particularly consequential because additional offensive strikes against Iran could trigger further retaliatory attacks, increasing the demand for defensive systems at a time when stocks are already under pressure.
While Washington continues to intercept Iranian drones and cruise missiles, it has so far avoided major retaliatory attacks inside Iran and strikes against the country’s oil tanker fleet.
Trump’s decision therefore remains unresolved.
The Pentagon has prepared targets, assembled substantial military forces and developed plans for a concentrated three-day campaign. Yet the administration continues to weigh the risks of renewed military action against the possibility that diplomatic negotiations and economic pressure may achieve results without another major escalation.
