Trump Discusses Possible Major Military Action Against Iran

President Donald Trump indicated on Thursday that the U.S. is close to deciding on a “massive attack” on Iran, which he suggested could be more extensive than any previous military engagement. This comes as the U.S. intensifies its military presence in the region and warns Iran of serious repercussions should tensions escalate further.

In an interview, Trump said, “We’re considering a major attack. It’s bigger than anything we’ve seen before. We’re getting closer to making a decision. We’re ready.” Axios pointed out that this potential operation might exceed the scale of a recent U.S.-Israel collaboration dubbed Operation Epic Fury.

These comments were made as the U.S. marks its second week of heightened military actions against Iran, following attacks on commercial vessels and a broader regional escalation. Central Command is ramping up pressure on Iran’s military assets, while the Pentagon boosts U.S. operational capabilities in the area, signaling a readiness for further action if Trump gives the green light.

The President noted that while Iran has shown some willingness to negotiate, they haven’t yet met U.S. demands, saying, “They haven’t suffered enough pain yet.” He also mentioned Israel’s likelihood of joining any new military actions, stating they could respond almost immediately if needed, but emphasized that the U.S. doesn’t rely on additional support to execute extensive operations.

However, Trump made it clear that no final decision has been made yet. U.S. officials confirmed that no new military directives had been issued, and the President has not instructed the Pentagon to prepare for an escalation.

Earlier that same day, Trump warned that Iran would bear the blame if attacks from Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi rebels continued, particularly after they targeted two Saudi ships in the Red Sea the night prior. He referenced a previous strong U.S. response to Houthi aggressions last year, saying, “Since then, during the conflict with Iran, they have acted very responsibly.” Unfortunately, he said, the Houthis had resumed their attacks.

Late Thursday evening, Trump elaborated on his earlier statements by asserting that any damages to ships or cargo would be charged to funds controlled by the U.S. that belong to Iran, describing this as a fair response to potential harm.

In tandem with these military maneuvers, the U.S. government is also sharing firm rhetoric. Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the administration’s stance, responding to comments from Iranian officials who threatened retaliatory measures. Rubio claimed Iran is facing consequences for repeatedly stepping back from negotiations, accusing the Houthis of being led into escalation on Iran’s behalf.

Despite tensions, there are still active diplomatic discussions. Trump suggested that Iran is interested in negotiations but indicated that his administration has yet to accept a recent U.S. offer. An informed source revealed that Iranian leaders have not agreed to the proposed negotiation framework either.

Moreover, Iranian representative Abbas Araghchi criticized the U.S. for the stalled negotiations, labeling its strategy as aggressive and stressing that real progress is unlikely unless the U.S. alters its approach.

The situation has raised concerns in Israel as well, with Defense Minister Israel Katz stating that the country is preparing for “all possibilities” and that an Iranian attack would be catastrophic. Israeli officials have been engaged in high-level security discussions amid the prospect of further U.S. military action.

When asked about Israel’s role in the potential expansion of military actions, Trump expressed confidence in his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but reiterated that the U.S. is capable of acting independently.

While Trump maintained that no final decision has been reached, the ongoing military buildup, persistent operations, and strong warnings from administration officials all indicate that the White House is bracing for the possibility of a broader conflict should diplomatic solutions fail.