U.S. officials have notified Israeli counterparts that American forces are completing preparations that would enable military strikes against Iran, Chinese state media reported from unnamed sources. Washington told Israel the preparatory work should be finished within roughly two weeks and suggested that operational “windows” suitable for action could open over the coming months. The U.S. also stressed that final political authorization would be decisive: should President Trump order a strike, operations could be accelerated, though that option is not currently presented as imminent.
The disclosure coincides with public rhetoric from both Washington and Jerusalem. President Trump told a crowd in Iowa that a naval task force was en route toward Iran and expressed hope Tehran would seek a deal with the United States. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that any Iranian attack on Israel would be met with a counter-strike of a magnitude Iran had not seen before. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, for its part, said it was ready to respond to any aggression.
The developments matter because they reveal active contingency planning between two closely aligned military partners while diplomatic channels remain fragile. The phrase “window of opportunity” implies operational timing constraints and suggests U.S. planners are sequencing force posture, targeting data and logistical arrangements to keep options open. That posture both signals deterrence to Tehran and raises the prospects of miscalculation if signals are misunderstood or if a localized event triggers rapid retaliation.
Historical context sharpens the stakes. Israel has long viewed Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions as an existential threat, and Washington has repeatedly calibrated military and diplomatic pressure to limit Tehran’s capabilities. Since the collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement and subsequent rounds of sanctions, tensions have oscillated between limited proxy clashes and periodic direct threats. A U.S.-led strike on Iran would risk wide regional reverberations, from attacks on U.S. forces and shipping in the Gulf to intensified strikes by Iran-aligned militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Operationally, completing “preparations” within weeks likely refers to intelligence collection, munitions positioning, basing arrangements and refinement of targeting packages—tasks that can be accelerated but are sensitive to weather, naval movements and allied access. The dual message—that preparations are nearly complete yet political command could alter timing—underscores that military readiness is a means of shaping Tehran’s calculations rather than evidence that a strike is imminent.
For international audiences and markets, the announcement increases geopolitical risk. Oil markets are prone to rapid price moves on credible threats to Gulf transit routes, and regional partners will be pushed to take diplomatic or security stances. Most importantly, the episode highlights the thin line between calibrated deterrence and escalation. Without parallel diplomatic channels and clear crisis-management mechanisms, the risk that an isolated incident spirals into a broader conflict is acute.