The Pentagon has publicly pledged to carry out any orders from President Donald Trump on Iran, underscoring how rapidly a political decision in Washington could translate into military action across the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Mr. Trump at a cabinet meeting that the department was prepared to meet the president’s expectations, framing the message as both assurance of readiness and a warning against Iranian nuclear ambitions.
The remarks came as U.S. forces have been massing in the region and American officials say the president is weighing a range of options, though no final decision has been made. U.S. media report that options under consideration include strikes on Iranian leadership figures, government institutions, and nuclear facilities — a menu of choices that, if acted on, would represent a major escalation from previous U.S. pressure campaigns.
Hegseth’s language was pointed: in his account he said Iran “should not seek nuclear capability” and that the Pentagon would be ready to implement whatever course the president chooses. That public alignment between the White House and the Department of Defense serves both to deter Tehran and to telegraph that military planners have been given a green light to prepare for kinetic options.
Tehran responded with stark warnings. Iran’s foreign ministry warned its armed forces were “ready to pull the trigger” in response to any infringement on Iranian territory or interests, and the presidential office said that genuine diplomacy from Washington would require a halt to provocative actions. Those statements encapsulate Tehran’s dual posture of deterrence and conditional openness to negotiation.
The situation matters because the combination of robust U.S. force posture, public signaling by senior officials, and a menu of high-impact military options raises the risk of miscalculation. A strike on leadership figures or nuclear sites would not be an isolated incident; it risks swift retaliation by Iranian proxies or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, wider regional conflagration, and disruption to global oil markets and maritime traffic.
Washington faces a narrow decision set: use coercive military pressure to degrade Iranian capabilities and send a message, or step back to allow diplomacy and regional de-escalation. The Pentagon’s public readiness reduces the friction between political decision and military execution, but it also shortens the time for diplomats to avert crisis once a decision to strike has been made. Global actors from Gulf states to European capitals will be watching closely for whether deterrence holds or escalation follows.