U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a range of new military strikes against Iran, including air attacks targeting senior Iranian leaders, security officials, nuclear sites and government institutions. U.S. media cited unnamed sources saying no final decision has been made, but the options on the table mark a dramatic intensification of pressure on Tehran.
The window for kinetic action has widened since the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln strike group moved into the region, according to the report. Washington has also been bolstering regional defenses: U.S. forces are deploying Patriot air‑defence batteries and planning to send one or more THAAD interceptors to protect American personnel and assets from potential Iranian retaliation.
The deliberations come against a backdrop of stalled diplomacy. Talks between Washington and Tehran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activities and ballistic‑missile production reportedly failed to make progress, removing a principal non‑military avenue to reduce tensions.
The mix of increased offensive options and stepped‑up defensive deployments highlights the central dilemma: the United States is preparing both to strike and to shield itself, a posture that may deter an immediate Iranian response but also raises the risk of miscalculation. Iran retains a range of asymmetric tools — proxy militias across the region, ballistic‑missile forces and cyber capabilities — that could produce rapid and unpredictable escalation if Tehran opts to retaliate.
A strike on Iranian leadership or nuclear infrastructure would carry high strategic and political costs. Militarily degrading Iran’s nuclear capacity is difficult without sustained strikes and follow‑on operations; politically, such action would likely galvanize Tehran’s domestic support and complicate relations with regional U.S. partners who prefer limited conflict and stable energy markets.
Beyond immediate battlefield calculations, a U.S. decision to strike would reverberate across global markets and alliances. Oil prices could spike on fears of wider disruption to Gulf shipping, and European and regional governments would face intense pressure to pick sides or to accelerate diplomatic efforts that the U.S.–Iran talks have so far failed to deliver.
For now the Trump White House faces a stark choice: accept the risks of a major limited strike that could fail to achieve lasting strategic objectives, or double down on containment, sanctions and international diplomacy that have so far produced limited results. How Washington balances these options will determine whether the next stage of U.S.–Iran rivalry escalates into a wider confrontation or remains a high‑stakes war of deterrence.