Lead
On Feb. 22, 2026, President Donald Trump told senior aides he was prepared to order an initial, limited U.S. strike on Iran if imminent diplomatic talks fail, and he kept open the possibility of a far larger military campaign later this year to try to remove Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power. Negotiators from the United States and Iran are due to meet in Geneva on Thursday for what U.S. officials describe as last-ditch talks to avert conflict. Two U.S. carrier strike groups have been reported within striking distance of Iranian targets as officials weigh options ranging from strikes on IRGC facilities to assaults on nuclear and missile sites. Administration advisers say no final decision has been made, but planners are assessing both the military and political consequences of stepped-up force.
Key Takeaways
- President Trump told advisers on Feb. 22, 2026 that an initial targeted strike could be launched in days if diplomacy fails, with a larger operation possible later this year to attempt regime change.
- Negotiators from the United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Thursday in an effort to avoid military escalation over Iran’s nuclear activities.
- Two U.S. carrier strike groups have been positioned within striking range of Iran, increasing U.S. operational flexibility in the region.
- Targets under consideration include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters, known nuclear sites such as Natanz and Fordow, and Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure.
- Officials say airstrikes alone are unlikely to topple Iran’s supreme leader; planners flag significant uncertainty about achieving regime change with strikes only.
- A proposed diplomatic off-ramp under discussion would allow a tightly restricted enrichment program limited to medical isotopes, not weapons-grade material.
- Internal debates within the administration reflect concern about regional escalation, civilian casualties, and the legal and diplomatic fallout of a broader campaign.
Background
The confrontation traces back to tensions over Iran’s nuclear program that intensified after the 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear accord and the reimposition of sanctions. Tehran has expanded aspects of its nuclear work since then, prompting repeated warnings from Washington and alarm among regional governments. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) plays a central role in both Iran’s security posture and its regional proxy relationships, which the U.S. regards as complicating any limited military action.
U.S. forward naval deployments historically serve as both deterrent and enablement for kinetic options; the current movement of two carrier strike groups into the region is consistent with that posture. Past U.S. actions against Iranian-backed forces and facilities have produced episodic escalations involving proxy attacks and retaliatory strikes, underscoring the risk that even a limited operation could widen. Domestic U.S. politics, congressional oversight, and allied responses in Europe and the Middle East shape planners’ calculations as well.
Main Event
According to senior administration advisers, Mr. Trump has instructed national security staff to prepare a menu of targets and timelines should Geneva talks not yield an agreement that meets U.S. demands. The immediate aim of a small strike, they say, would be to signal to Iran’s leadership that continued nuclear advancement is unacceptable and that costs will rise. Options outlined include strikes on IRGC command centers, disruption of enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, and attacks on missile storage and production sites.
Officials and analysts within the administration differ on the likely effectiveness of such strikes. Some argue a short, precise operation could coerce Tehran into concessions; others warn that damage to key facilities would be repairable and could provoke asymmetric retaliation by Iran and its proxies across the region. U.S. planners are also weighing collateral-risk mitigation, intelligence reliability for target selection, and the timing of any operation relative to diplomatic moves in Geneva.
Mr. Trump reportedly told advisers he would keep open a contingency for a much larger campaign later in the year intended to degrade the regime’s cohesion or remove top leadership if sequential steps fail. Multiple officials cautioned that achieving regime change through airpower alone is uncertain, and that political, logistical, and intelligence limits could constrain success. Behind closed doors, negotiators on both sides have discussed a narrow enrichment arrangement for medical isotopes as a potential compromise to avoid kinetic escalation.
Analysis & Implications
A limited strike carries immediate strategic risks: it could trigger retaliatory strikes on U.S. forces, risk civilian casualties, and mobilize Iran’s regional network of proxies to attack U.S. partners and shipping lanes. Even a small operation would test allied solidarity; European partners have generally favored renewed diplomacy and restraint, and a unilateral escalation could strain cooperation on sanctions and intelligence sharing. Economically, fears of wider conflict could disrupt oil markets and trade through the Strait of Hormuz.
The option of a larger campaign aimed at undermining Iran’s leadership raises deeper questions about feasibility and exit strategy. Removing a supreme leader embedded in clerical and security institutions requires more than aerial strikes; it would likely demand sustained pressure, occupation forces, or internal political fractures—none of which have clear paths or international support. Military planners recognize that capability to strike does not equal the ability to secure a lasting political outcome.
Diplomatically, presenting a credible off-ramp—such as highly constrained enrichment for medical purposes—could provide Iran a face-saving technical exception while addressing humanitarian needs. However, verification and enforcement would be critical and difficult to negotiate quickly. If Iran accepts such a deal, it could de-escalate tensions; if rejected, the United States faces the prospect of choosing between military action with high downstream costs or renewed pressure through sanctions and multilateral isolation.
Comparison & Data
| Option | Primary Targets | Likely Immediate Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Limited strike | IRGC HQ, select nuclear/missile sites | Demonstrate capability; risk asymmetric retaliation |
| Larger campaign | Broad nuclear infrastructure, command networks | Higher degradation of capabilities; uncertain political result |
| Diplomatic off-ramp | Strictly monitored medical isotope enrichment | Possible de-escalation if verifiable |
The table summarizes trade-offs senior officials described: a narrow strike offers fast, visible action but carries escalation risk; a larger campaign increases damage to Iran’s capabilities but does not guarantee regime change; a monitored medical program could reduce tensions if inspection regimes are robust. Historical precedents—such as past military strikes on nuclear infrastructure elsewhere—show repair and concealment are persistent challenges after kinetic attacks.
Reactions & Quotes
Public responses have been muted while diplomatic channels remain active, but official and expert statements outline the contours of debate.
If diplomacy collapses, military options will remain on the table to protect our national security interests.
Senior U.S. official (administration)
That statement was offered by a U.S. official summarizing the administration’s posture while emphasizing that final decisions were pending and that planners were coordinating operational and legal reviews.
Iran will defend its sovereignty and respond to any aggression in accordance with its capabilities.
Iranian Foreign Ministry (state media)
The Iranian ministry’s remark, circulated by state outlets, framed potential U.S. action as aggression and warned of a proportionate response, signaling Tehran’s intent to mobilize conventional and proxy levers if attacked.
Air power can significantly degrade infrastructure, but removing a supreme leader without a coherent political plan is unlikely.
Independent defense analyst
Experts emphasize the distinction between military effects on facilities and the complex political dimensions required to change a regime’s leadership or behavior over the long term.
Unconfirmed
- No independent public evidence confirms an explicit U.S. timetable for a follow-on campaign intended to remove Ayatollah Khamenei; officials describe that as a contingency under discussion.
- Positions and readiness of the two carrier strike groups have been reported by officials, but precise locations and strike packages are not publicly verified.
- The details and acceptance of the proposed medical-isotope enrichment off-ramp remain under negotiation and have not been agreed by either government.
Bottom Line
The immediate window around the Geneva talks is critical: a credible, verifiable diplomatic compromise could avert military action, while a failed negotiation increases the risk of a U.S. limited strike that could spiral. Administration statements indicate a willingness to use force as coercion, but planners acknowledge the limits of airpower to deliver durable political change inside Iran.
Observers should watch for tangible markers over the coming days: the content and outcome of Geneva discussions, any authenticated changes in U.S. force posture, public Iranian reactions, and international responses from European partners and regional governments. Those signals will determine whether the crisis stabilizes or moves into a more dangerous phase.