President Trump has told senior advisers he is prepared to move beyond diplomacy and a limited strike if negotiations with Iran do not force Tehran to abandon its nuclear-weapons capability, U.S. officials said. The administration and Iranian negotiators are set to meet in Geneva on Thursday in what U.S. officials described as a last effort to avert military action. While no final decision has been announced, Mr. Trump has been weighing an initial, punitive strike in the coming days and has kept open the option of a far larger campaign later this year aimed at dislodging Iran’s leadership. U.S. forces — including two carrier groups and numerous combat and support aircraft — are already concentrated within striking range of Iran.
Key Takeaways
- President Trump convened a White House Situation Room meeting on Wednesday with Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to review potential actions against Iran.
- U.S. and Iranian negotiators will meet in Geneva on Thursday for what officials called a final diplomatic attempt to avoid conflict.
- Options under active consideration include precision strikes on IRGC headquarters, nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile programs; an initial limited strike is reportedly being favored by the president.
- Administration officials say a larger campaign to remove Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains a contingency if limited action fails, though military leaders doubt air power alone could achieve regime change.
- A proposal from IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi that would allow Iran a narrowly limited nuclear-enrichment program for medical isotopes is under discussion as a possible face‑saving off-ramp.
- Two aircraft carrier strike groups, dozens of fighter jets, bombers and refueling aircraft have been deployed to the region — the largest U.S. concentration of forces there since preparations for the 2003 Iraq invasion.
- Plans for special-operations raids to dismantle deep-buried enrichment or missile infrastructure were reportedly shelved because of the high risk and extended on-the-ground exposure those missions would entail.
Background
Relations between Washington and Tehran have deteriorated since the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear accord in 2018. That withdrawal prompted Iran to curtail inspections and to accelerate enrichment activities, producing uranium at levels closer to weapons grade and reviving a confrontation that had been restrained under the agreement. Successive U.S. administrations have alternated between sanctions, covert actions and diplomatic engagement to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence.
Domestically, President Trump has framed the crisis as an effort to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon, while aides have also cited broader objectives: degrading missile arsenals, reducing Tehran’s backing for proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and protecting demonstrators reportedly killed by Iranian security forces. Regionally, Arab partners have reacted with caution; recent comments by the U.S. ambassador to Israel strained ties with Arab diplomats whose cooperation Washington may seek in the event of military action.
Main Event
In the White House Situation Room meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Trump pressed military and intelligence leaders to outline what strikes might achieve and what risks they would carry. General Caine and Director Ratcliffe described operational possibilities and current on-the-ground implications, respectively, but did not offer categorical assurances of success. Participants told officials the military could plan strikes on Revolutionary Guard command centers, uranium-enrichment sites and ballistic-missile production facilities, but emphasized limits to what aerial campaign alone could accomplish.
Advisers described the president as inclined toward an initial limited action that would signal seriousness and test Iranian responses. If those demonstrative strikes failed to meet U.S. demands, Mr. Trump reportedly left open the option of escalating to a broader campaign later this year aimed at undermining the current Iranian leadership. Senior advisers cautioned that airpower alone would likely be insufficient to topple a regime, and that any broader plan would face substantial military and political obstacles.
Planned ground operations — including commando raids intended to destroy subterranean enrichment and manufacturing facilities — have been tabled for now because they would expose special-operations teams to prolonged danger and complex operational challenges. Service chiefs also warned that sustaining a campaign or maintaining posture for an extended period would strain limited assets such as Patriot batteries, surveillance aircraft and sealift readiness.
Analysis & Implications
A narrowly tailored strike might achieve deterrent effects in the short term, signaling to Tehran and allies that the United States is prepared to use force; however, military planners warn that symbolic strikes risk escalating into sustained conflict if Iran chooses retaliatory measures. Iran’s capacity for asymmetric responses — missile salvos, proxy attacks across the region, and cyber operations — could impose sustained costs on U.S. forces and partners, complicating any plan that relies solely on precision air attacks.
Toppling Iran’s leadership by aerial campaign is widely judged improbable. Regime change typically requires sustained pressure across political, economic and security domains, and an air campaign would likely unify nationalist sentiment inside Iran that might otherwise be fracturing. Moreover, removing a supreme leader without a clear transition plan could create a dangerous vacuum, empowering hard-line factions or sparking broader instability in the Gulf.
Diplomatically, accepting a limited enrichment program for medical isotopes could produce a face‑saving compromise: Iran could claim continued peaceful nuclear activity while Washington would insist on shuttering weaponizable facilities. Yet the political optics for both sides are fraught — President Trump has publicly advocated “zero enrichment,” and Tehran has defended what it calls its treaty-right to produce nuclear fuel — making any compromise delicate to sell domestically and to regional partners.
Comparison & Data
| Context | Then (2003 prep) | Now (2026 buildup) |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. naval concentration | Large carrier and strike presence (pre-Iraq invasion) | Two carrier groups plus numerous combat and support aircraft; described as the largest since 2003 |
| Diplomatic alternatives | Pre-invasion coalition-building and inspections | IAEA-mediated proposal for limited medical isotope enrichment under discussion |
The deployment around Iran has been compared by U.S. officials to the force posture before the 2003 Iraq campaign, though the two situations differ in aims and regional alliances. The IAEA proposal, if accepted, would be narrower in scope than the 2015 accord and would require robust verification to ensure enrichment remains limited to medical isotopes.
Reactions & Quotes
White House officials offered a muted public response while confirming internal deliberations. Context and attribution follow each quotation.
“The media may continue to speculate on the President’s thinking all they want, but only President Trump knows what he may or may not do.”
Anna Kelly, White House spokeswoman (statement)
The White House spokesperson framed media reports as conjecture and declined to disclose deliberations publicly.
“The clear direction to me was zero enrichment — that is the only acceptable outcome.”
Steve Witkoff, presidential special envoy (television interview)
Mr. Witkoff’s remarks on Fox News reflect a hardline negotiating stance by some members of the president’s team, underscoring domestic pressure for a maximal outcome.
“There is still a good chance to have a diplomatic solution. There is no need for any military buildup.”
Abbas Araghchi, Iranian deputy foreign minister (CBS interview)
Tehran’s public position emphasizes diplomacy and rejects surrendering enrichment rights, complicating Washington’s demand for zero enrichment.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Iran will accept the IAEA-mediated medical-isotope compromise remains unclear; officials said a Tehran response was expected Monday or Tuesday but outcomes were not confirmed.
- Reports that a broader plan explicitly intended to remove Supreme Leader Khamenei is contemplated are sourced to internal discussions; military leaders interviewed said airstrikes alone would probably not achieve regime change.
Bottom Line
The Trump administration is balancing a narrow, demonstrative strike option against the grave risks of escalation and the practical limits of airpower to reshape Iran’s political order. Diplomatic last-ditch talks in Geneva this week and an IAEA proposal for limited medical enrichment offer a potential off-ramp, but political commitments on both sides make compromise difficult to reach and easy to repudiate.
For U.S. policymakers, the trade-offs are stark: act now with limited force and risk further entanglement, or secure an enforceable diplomatic arrangement that requires tough verification and domestic sell‑through. Regional partners, military planners and international inspectors will play decisive roles in whether a negotiated solution holds or whether the situation moves toward a broader confrontation.
Sources
- The New York Times — Live reporting on Trump and Iran deliberations (U.S. national newspaper, reporting)
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (UN nuclear watchdog, official)
- CBS Face the Nation — interview with Abbas Araghchi (broadcast news program, reporting)
- Fox News — interview excerpts with Steve Witkoff (television network, reporting)
- Munich Security Conference (international security forum, reporting and official statements)