How Iran plans to go to war with the US – and win
Akhtar Makoii
Fri, February 20, 2026
Tehran’s battle plan involves launching a colossal counterattack against US military targets - Reuters
Iran has revealed its vision for war with the United States, detailing how it would overcome the world’s most powerful military and severely disrupt the global economy.
In a detailed battle plan published by Tasnim, the news agency affiliated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s leadership envisages strikes on US bases, new fronts opened up by proxy allies, cyber warfare and the paralysis of the global oil trade. Middle Eastern geography would win out against American technology, Iran insists.
The two arch enemies held the second round of renewed indirect talks this week in Geneva. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said that both sides agreed on “guiding principles” but they fell short of a full deal.
One US aircraft carrier strike group is already in the region with another on its way. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened to send them “to the bottom of the sea”.
“They constantly say we have sent an aircraft carrier towards Iran,” the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader said. “Very well, an aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous machine, but more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”
1402 US Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups
Mr Khamenei’s threats to sink US warships are likely aimed primarily at a domestic audience rather than Washington, but nonetheless risk angering Donald Trump.
Mr Trump warned that Tehran had 10 to 15 days to make a “meaningful deal” with Washington or “bad things” would happen. Iran’s envoy to the United Nations said Tehran will respond “decisively” to any “military aggression” by the United States.
If the two countries do go to war, here is how Iran plans to defeat the United States.
Stage one: US strikes Iran
Iran’s scenario begins with US air and missile strikes targeting nuclear sites, military installations and IRGC bases, most of which are located in densely populated areas.
It is likely that US forces would launch attacks from aircraft carriers, including the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group currently in the region, strategic bombers flying from home or European bases, and possibly land-based systems in allied countries.
The Pentagon has conducted extensive planning for such operations over decades and carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June. Mr Trump has made repeated threats to strike the country again after anti-regime protesters were brutally put down by government forces, with thousands killed.
Speaking to The Telegraph’s Planet Normal Podcast, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, said: “I think the possibility of an attack is reasonably high, and the reason it’s reasonably high is because it’s what the Israelis are urging Trump to do.”
Credit: X/@Tasnimnews_Fa
American strike packages would entail stealth aircraft, precision-guided munitions and coordinated salvos designed to overwhelm Iranian air defences while minimising US aircraft losses.
Technological advances in hypersonic weapons and electronic warfare would give the US significant advantages.
However, Iran believes it has prepared for this scenario through hardening and dispersing critical assets, building redundant command structures, and developing extensive underground facilities that would survive initial strikes.
Tehran’s calculus depends not on preventing damage but on retaining sufficient capability to launch counter-attacks.
“We are ready for any action by enemies,” Maj Gen Abdolrahim Mousavi, chief of staff of the armed forces, said on Wednesday as he toured an IRGC missile city.
“After the 12-day war, we changed our military doctrine from defensive to offensive by adopting a policy of asymmetric warfare and a crushing response to enemies,” he said.
Stage two: Iran strikes back – with help
Iran’s response would expand the battlefield beyond its borders immediately. Within hours, Tehran would launch barrages of ballistic missiles and drones at US military installations across the region, the plan envisaged.
Primary targets would include Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, which hosts the US Central Command’s forward headquarters and serves as the main air operations hub. Iran attacked this base last year after its own nuclear sites were struck by US B-2 bombers.
In Kuwait, Ali Al Salem air base and Camp Arifjan, a major logistics centre for US ground forces, would come under attack, while facilities across the United Arab Emirates and a US base in Syria, where 2,000 US troops remain, would also be targeted.
Amir Akraminia, Iran’s army spokesman, claims access to US bases is “easy”.
Iran hit Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq with ballistic missiles after Qassem Soleimani’s assassination in 2020, causing traumatic brain injuries to more than 100 American soldiers. It could try to do so again, even though US troops completed a “full withdrawal” from the base in January.
The report said: “Iran does not see itself as an ‘isolated island’ in war, but rather as the centre of a potential network of confrontations.”
The Iranian strategy envisages overwhelming US defences through volume by launching hundreds or thousands of projectiles simultaneously to saturate Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence batteries.
Iran’s arsenal includes Shahed-136 drones with 50kg payloads, Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles with manoeuvrable warheads designed to evade missile defences, Emad ballistic missiles with 750kg payloads, and Paveh cruise missiles with a 1,000-mile range.
Credit: Telewebion
While many would be intercepted, Iran believes enough would penetrate to inflict significant casualties and damage critical infrastructure. Simultaneously, it is imagined that Iran’s “axis of resistance” would activate across multiple fronts.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has said it considers a war on Iran its own war and could launch rockets and missiles at Israel, forcing the US ally to divert resources for defence.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels would intensify attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Israel and US bases in the region. Iraqi militia groups aligned with Tehran would strike US personnel and diplomatic facilities.
However, this multi-proxy strategy faces significant challenges. Israel’s recent military operations have severely degraded the capabilities of Hezbollah and Hamas.
The assumption that these groups would immediately coordinate effective attacks while simultaneously defending against Israeli and US countermeasures appears optimistic.
Host countries, including Iraq and Lebanon, could actively work to prevent their territory from being used for attacks that would bring devastating retaliation.
But the multi-front approach aims to spread America’s forces thin in the region by opening multiple conflicts in disparate locations, limiting Washington’s ability to concentrate forces against Iran itself.
Any country providing airspace, basing or logistical support to US operations would be declared a “legitimate target”, Tehran warned.
Stage three: cyber warfare
Iran plans to launch cyber attacks targeting what it perceives to be American vulnerabilities: transportation networks, energy infrastructure, financial systems and military communications.
Tehran believes cyber operations could disrupt US logistics, complicate command and control, and sow chaos in allied countries hosting American forces.
By attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power grids or water systems, Iran hopes to pressure host governments to expel US forces.
Iranian hackers have previously demonstrated capabilities against regional targets. In 2012, the Shamoon virus disrupted 30,000 computers at Saudi oil giant Aramco.
More recently, Iranian groups have examined US infrastructure, though with limited success against hardened military networks.
However, US Cyber Command has spent years preparing for such scenarios. American cyber capabilities dwarf Iran’s, with the ability to conduct counter-attacks on Iranian infrastructure, which is more vulnerable than US systems.
The Pentagon could disable Iranian power generation, disrupt missile guidance systems and compromise communications networks.
Stage four: paralysing global oil supplies
Iran’s most potent weapon, it says, is geographic: control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 21 million barrels of oil pass daily – roughly 21 per cent of global petroleum.
The IRGC closed the strait for several hours on Tuesday for live-fire naval drills in the north-west of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group this week.
Iranian state television broadcast footage showing cruise missiles being fired towards targets during the exercises.
Credit: @TM_911/ Fars News
Russian warships joined the IRGC later in the week for “naval exercises” in the Gulf of Oman.
Alireza Tangsiri, the IRGC navy commander, warned during those drills that “weapons that come to the field [of war] are different from the ones in drills.”
This waterway, just 24 miles wide at its narrowest point, is one of the world’s most critical energy choke points. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait during periods of heightened tension.
Iran’s tactic would involve mining the waterway, attacking tankers with missiles and drones, and potentially sinking vessels to block shipping channels.
IRGC naval forces have practised swarming tactics, using small boats armed with rockets and torpedoes, designed to overwhelm larger warships.
Such actions would send oil prices soaring, potentially to $200 (£160) or more per barrel, inflicting severe economic damage worldwide and putting pressure on the US to back down.
Hossein Shariatmadari, a representative of Khamenei, said: “We can impose restrictions against the United States, France, Britain and Germany in the Strait of Hormuz and not allow them to navigate.”
Iran calculates this economic weapon could fracture the international coalition supporting US military action.
The US has contingency plans for keeping Hormuz open, including mine-sweeping operations, destroyer escorts for tanker convoys and strikes on Iranian coastal installations.
However, even partially degraded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would roil global markets. Iran believes the economic cost would ultimately force Washington to negotiate rather than sustain an extended war.
Yet this strategy carries risks for Iran itself. Oil exports account for the majority of government revenue, and closing Hormuz would devastate Iran’s economy even more than its enemies’.
Stage five: the endgame
Tehran’s strategy banks on the US and its allies concluding that the costs of sustained conflict would exceed any benefits.
By threatening global energy supplies, imposing continuous attacks across multiple countries and potentially inflicting significant US casualties, Iran hopes to create an unsustainable multi-front situation.
Iranian planners believe the US has limited appetite for protracted wars after Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fighting simultaneously against entrenched proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and potentially Syria, while defending Gulf allies and maintaining open shipping lanes, would strain even US military resources.
Iran’s strategy relies on the premise that the US president will determine the price of war to be too costly - Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg
Iran views its strategy as one of asymmetric endurance. It cannot win militarily, but believes it can make victory too expensive for Washington to pursue.
This calculus depends on the US choosing to de-escalate rather than applying its full conventional capabilities, which could devastate Iranian infrastructure and military forces.
The ultimate question is political will rather than military capability.
The strategy also assumes rational decision-making on both sides, but escalation dynamics in war are notoriously unpredictable. What Iran intends as calibrated pressure could trigger overwhelming US retaliation, especially if American casualties are high.
Iran knows this. While the plan envisages victory, there is quiet hope that it will never be put into action.
Akhtar Makoii
Fri, February 20, 2026
Tehran’s battle plan involves launching a colossal counterattack against US military targets - Reuters
Iran has revealed its vision for war with the United States, detailing how it would overcome the world’s most powerful military and severely disrupt the global economy.
In a detailed battle plan published by Tasnim, the news agency affiliated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s leadership envisages strikes on US bases, new fronts opened up by proxy allies, cyber warfare and the paralysis of the global oil trade. Middle Eastern geography would win out against American technology, Iran insists.
The two arch enemies held the second round of renewed indirect talks this week in Geneva. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said that both sides agreed on “guiding principles” but they fell short of a full deal.
One US aircraft carrier strike group is already in the region with another on its way. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened to send them “to the bottom of the sea”.
“They constantly say we have sent an aircraft carrier towards Iran,” the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader said. “Very well, an aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous machine, but more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”
1402 US Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups
Mr Khamenei’s threats to sink US warships are likely aimed primarily at a domestic audience rather than Washington, but nonetheless risk angering Donald Trump.
Mr Trump warned that Tehran had 10 to 15 days to make a “meaningful deal” with Washington or “bad things” would happen. Iran’s envoy to the United Nations said Tehran will respond “decisively” to any “military aggression” by the United States.
If the two countries do go to war, here is how Iran plans to defeat the United States.
Stage one: US strikes Iran
Iran’s scenario begins with US air and missile strikes targeting nuclear sites, military installations and IRGC bases, most of which are located in densely populated areas.
It is likely that US forces would launch attacks from aircraft carriers, including the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group currently in the region, strategic bombers flying from home or European bases, and possibly land-based systems in allied countries.
The Pentagon has conducted extensive planning for such operations over decades and carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June. Mr Trump has made repeated threats to strike the country again after anti-regime protesters were brutally put down by government forces, with thousands killed.
Speaking to The Telegraph’s Planet Normal Podcast, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, said: “I think the possibility of an attack is reasonably high, and the reason it’s reasonably high is because it’s what the Israelis are urging Trump to do.”
Credit: X/@Tasnimnews_Fa
American strike packages would entail stealth aircraft, precision-guided munitions and coordinated salvos designed to overwhelm Iranian air defences while minimising US aircraft losses.
Technological advances in hypersonic weapons and electronic warfare would give the US significant advantages.
However, Iran believes it has prepared for this scenario through hardening and dispersing critical assets, building redundant command structures, and developing extensive underground facilities that would survive initial strikes.
Tehran’s calculus depends not on preventing damage but on retaining sufficient capability to launch counter-attacks.
“We are ready for any action by enemies,” Maj Gen Abdolrahim Mousavi, chief of staff of the armed forces, said on Wednesday as he toured an IRGC missile city.
“After the 12-day war, we changed our military doctrine from defensive to offensive by adopting a policy of asymmetric warfare and a crushing response to enemies,” he said.
Stage two: Iran strikes back – with help
Iran’s response would expand the battlefield beyond its borders immediately. Within hours, Tehran would launch barrages of ballistic missiles and drones at US military installations across the region, the plan envisaged.
Primary targets would include Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, which hosts the US Central Command’s forward headquarters and serves as the main air operations hub. Iran attacked this base last year after its own nuclear sites were struck by US B-2 bombers.
In Kuwait, Ali Al Salem air base and Camp Arifjan, a major logistics centre for US ground forces, would come under attack, while facilities across the United Arab Emirates and a US base in Syria, where 2,000 US troops remain, would also be targeted.
Amir Akraminia, Iran’s army spokesman, claims access to US bases is “easy”.
Iran hit Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq with ballistic missiles after Qassem Soleimani’s assassination in 2020, causing traumatic brain injuries to more than 100 American soldiers. It could try to do so again, even though US troops completed a “full withdrawal” from the base in January.
The report said: “Iran does not see itself as an ‘isolated island’ in war, but rather as the centre of a potential network of confrontations.”
The Iranian strategy envisages overwhelming US defences through volume by launching hundreds or thousands of projectiles simultaneously to saturate Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence batteries.
Iran’s arsenal includes Shahed-136 drones with 50kg payloads, Kheibar Shekan ballistic missiles with manoeuvrable warheads designed to evade missile defences, Emad ballistic missiles with 750kg payloads, and Paveh cruise missiles with a 1,000-mile range.
Credit: Telewebion
While many would be intercepted, Iran believes enough would penetrate to inflict significant casualties and damage critical infrastructure. Simultaneously, it is imagined that Iran’s “axis of resistance” would activate across multiple fronts.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has said it considers a war on Iran its own war and could launch rockets and missiles at Israel, forcing the US ally to divert resources for defence.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels would intensify attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Israel and US bases in the region. Iraqi militia groups aligned with Tehran would strike US personnel and diplomatic facilities.
However, this multi-proxy strategy faces significant challenges. Israel’s recent military operations have severely degraded the capabilities of Hezbollah and Hamas.
The assumption that these groups would immediately coordinate effective attacks while simultaneously defending against Israeli and US countermeasures appears optimistic.
Host countries, including Iraq and Lebanon, could actively work to prevent their territory from being used for attacks that would bring devastating retaliation.
But the multi-front approach aims to spread America’s forces thin in the region by opening multiple conflicts in disparate locations, limiting Washington’s ability to concentrate forces against Iran itself.
Any country providing airspace, basing or logistical support to US operations would be declared a “legitimate target”, Tehran warned.
Stage three: cyber warfare
Iran plans to launch cyber attacks targeting what it perceives to be American vulnerabilities: transportation networks, energy infrastructure, financial systems and military communications.
Tehran believes cyber operations could disrupt US logistics, complicate command and control, and sow chaos in allied countries hosting American forces.
By attacking civilian infrastructure, such as power grids or water systems, Iran hopes to pressure host governments to expel US forces.
Iranian hackers have previously demonstrated capabilities against regional targets. In 2012, the Shamoon virus disrupted 30,000 computers at Saudi oil giant Aramco.
More recently, Iranian groups have examined US infrastructure, though with limited success against hardened military networks.
However, US Cyber Command has spent years preparing for such scenarios. American cyber capabilities dwarf Iran’s, with the ability to conduct counter-attacks on Iranian infrastructure, which is more vulnerable than US systems.
The Pentagon could disable Iranian power generation, disrupt missile guidance systems and compromise communications networks.
Stage four: paralysing global oil supplies
Iran’s most potent weapon, it says, is geographic: control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 21 million barrels of oil pass daily – roughly 21 per cent of global petroleum.
The IRGC closed the strait for several hours on Tuesday for live-fire naval drills in the north-west of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group this week.
Iranian state television broadcast footage showing cruise missiles being fired towards targets during the exercises.
Credit: @TM_911/ Fars News
Russian warships joined the IRGC later in the week for “naval exercises” in the Gulf of Oman.
Alireza Tangsiri, the IRGC navy commander, warned during those drills that “weapons that come to the field [of war] are different from the ones in drills.”
This waterway, just 24 miles wide at its narrowest point, is one of the world’s most critical energy choke points. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait during periods of heightened tension.
Iran’s tactic would involve mining the waterway, attacking tankers with missiles and drones, and potentially sinking vessels to block shipping channels.
IRGC naval forces have practised swarming tactics, using small boats armed with rockets and torpedoes, designed to overwhelm larger warships.
Such actions would send oil prices soaring, potentially to $200 (£160) or more per barrel, inflicting severe economic damage worldwide and putting pressure on the US to back down.
Hossein Shariatmadari, a representative of Khamenei, said: “We can impose restrictions against the United States, France, Britain and Germany in the Strait of Hormuz and not allow them to navigate.”
Iran calculates this economic weapon could fracture the international coalition supporting US military action.
The US has contingency plans for keeping Hormuz open, including mine-sweeping operations, destroyer escorts for tanker convoys and strikes on Iranian coastal installations.
However, even partially degraded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would roil global markets. Iran believes the economic cost would ultimately force Washington to negotiate rather than sustain an extended war.
Yet this strategy carries risks for Iran itself. Oil exports account for the majority of government revenue, and closing Hormuz would devastate Iran’s economy even more than its enemies’.
Stage five: the endgame
Tehran’s strategy banks on the US and its allies concluding that the costs of sustained conflict would exceed any benefits.
By threatening global energy supplies, imposing continuous attacks across multiple countries and potentially inflicting significant US casualties, Iran hopes to create an unsustainable multi-front situation.
Iranian planners believe the US has limited appetite for protracted wars after Afghanistan and Iraq.
Fighting simultaneously against entrenched proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and potentially Syria, while defending Gulf allies and maintaining open shipping lanes, would strain even US military resources.
Iran’s strategy relies on the premise that the US president will determine the price of war to be too costly - Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg
Iran views its strategy as one of asymmetric endurance. It cannot win militarily, but believes it can make victory too expensive for Washington to pursue.
This calculus depends on the US choosing to de-escalate rather than applying its full conventional capabilities, which could devastate Iranian infrastructure and military forces.
The ultimate question is political will rather than military capability.
The strategy also assumes rational decision-making on both sides, but escalation dynamics in war are notoriously unpredictable. What Iran intends as calibrated pressure could trigger overwhelming US retaliation, especially if American casualties are high.
Iran knows this. While the plan envisages victory, there is quiet hope that it will never be put into action.
Alex Griffing
Wed, February 18, 2026
Mediaite
President Trump has been briefed by top national security officials that the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but a final decision has not yet been made.
Jennifer Jacobs, CBS News’s senior White House reporter, dropped an exclusive report on Wednesday night detailing when President Donald Trump will be fully positioned for an all-out assault on Iran.
The U.S. has been moving a vast amount of military assets into the Middle East as talks between Iran and the U.S. continue – under the explicit threat of military action if no agreement on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program is reached.
“Top national security officials have told Trump the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but the timeline for any action is likely to extend beyond Saturday or Sunday, sources say,” Jacobs wrote on social media, detailing some of the key points in her scoop. She added:
Trump has not yet made a final decision. Over the next 3 days, Pentagon is moving some personnel out of the Middle East region — primarily to Europe or back to US — ahead of potential action or counterattacks by Iran. It’s standard practice for the Pentagon to shift assets and troops ahead of a potential military activity and doesn’t necessarily signal an attack on Iran is imminent, one of the sources said.
Axios’s Barak Ravid reported earlier on Wednesday that “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela, sources say.”
Ravid added that his sources believe the campaign would be a joint U.S.-Israeli effort and would be “more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.” Ravid also detailed more of the military assets Trump has moved into the region as he ratchets up the threat of all-out war:
Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way.
More than 150 U.S. military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East.
Just in the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets — F-35s, F-22s and F-16s — headed to the region.
Trump, according to Ravid, was very close to attacking Iran in January over the mass slaughter of pro-democracy protestors in the country, but wrote “when the window of opportunity passed, the administration shifted to a two-track approach: nuclear talks paired with a massive military build-up.”
Is Trump about to go to war with Iran?
Wed, February 18, 2026
Mediaite
President Trump has been briefed by top national security officials that the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but a final decision has not yet been made.
Jennifer Jacobs, CBS News’s senior White House reporter, dropped an exclusive report on Wednesday night detailing when President Donald Trump will be fully positioned for an all-out assault on Iran.
The U.S. has been moving a vast amount of military assets into the Middle East as talks between Iran and the U.S. continue – under the explicit threat of military action if no agreement on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program is reached.
“Top national security officials have told Trump the military is ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as this weekend, but the timeline for any action is likely to extend beyond Saturday or Sunday, sources say,” Jacobs wrote on social media, detailing some of the key points in her scoop. She added:
Trump has not yet made a final decision. Over the next 3 days, Pentagon is moving some personnel out of the Middle East region — primarily to Europe or back to US — ahead of potential action or counterattacks by Iran. It’s standard practice for the Pentagon to shift assets and troops ahead of a potential military activity and doesn’t necessarily signal an attack on Iran is imminent, one of the sources said.
Axios’s Barak Ravid reported earlier on Wednesday that “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month’s pinpoint operation in Venezuela, sources say.”
Ravid added that his sources believe the campaign would be a joint U.S.-Israeli effort and would be “more existential for the regime — than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.” Ravid also detailed more of the military assets Trump has moved into the region as he ratchets up the threat of all-out war:
Trump’s armada has grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets and multiple air defense systems. Some of that firepower is still on its way.
More than 150 U.S. military cargo flights have moved weapons systems and ammunition to the Middle East.
Just in the past 24 hours, another 50 fighter jets — F-35s, F-22s and F-16s — headed to the region.
Trump, according to Ravid, was very close to attacking Iran in January over the mass slaughter of pro-democracy protestors in the country, but wrote “when the window of opportunity passed, the administration shifted to a two-track approach: nuclear talks paired with a massive military build-up.”
Is Trump about to go to war with Iran?
"You're gonna be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days," the president said on Thursday.
Andrew Romano, Reporter
Updated Fri, February 20, 2026
In recent weeks, President Trump has amassed what he’s described as an “armada” of destroyers, aircraft carriers, warships, submarines and attack planes within striking distance of Iran — a build-up that has “progressed to the point [where he] has the option to take military action … as soon as this weekend,” the New York Times reported on Wednesday.
At the same time, the president has said that regime change “would be the best thing that could happen” to Iran, which has been ruled by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since 1989.
“We have to make a meaningful deal, otherwise bad things happen,” Trump told his Board of Peace in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “They can't have a nuclear weapon and they've been told that very strongly."
So is Trump about to launch a major war with Iran? Here’s what we know.
How we got here
If a possible U.S. attack on Iran sounds familiar, that’s because Trump already launched one in June 2025, striking the regime’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites in concert with Israel.
The president claimed at the time that Iran’s facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated,” putting a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.”
Yet other reports suggested that the Iranians might have moved their stash of enriched uranium before the strikes — and that the U.S. bombings left at least some of Tehran’s nuclear program intact.
During his first term, Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal that had "dismantled much of [Iran’s] nuclear program and opened its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations — at which point Iran “resumed its nuclear activities.”
When protests broke out in Iran late last year — and when the regime launched a violent crackdown that reportedly killed thousands — Trump started weighing another round of strikes, repeatedly declaring that the U.S. military was “locked and loaded” and ready to attack. Then, in mid-January, Trump abruptly backed down at the urging of Israel and several Arab nations after Iranian authorities said they had canceled hundreds of scheduled executions.
So why is Trump saber-rattling again — and beefing up America’s firepower in the region?
According to Vice President JD Vance, “our primary interest here is we don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”
To that end, American and Iranian officials held three hours of indirect talks in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday that ended with a “set of guiding principles,” according to Iran’s foreign minister, as well as an agreement to exchange drafts of a potential deal within two weeks.
But Trump allies have also been pushing for regime change rather than diplomacy.
“I talked to the president the day before yesterday and we talked about Iran,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News on Wednesday. “I said the regime is teetering, the ayatollah is in his last days — and I said do not let this opportunity pass.”
Where things stand right now
Trump seems to be moving forward on two tracks at once. Yes, he’s pursuing a diplomatic deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. But he’s also pressuring Tehran to meet his terms by surging U.S. military forces to the region — forces he says he’s prepared to deploy if diplomacy falls short.
“So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not,” Trump said on Thursday. “You’re gonna be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days.”
The question now is whether a deal on Trump’s terms is really attainable.
According to the Times, “three Iranian officials familiar with [Tuesday’s] talks said that Iran had indicated a willingness to suspend nuclear enrichment for three to five years — which would cover the duration of Mr. Trump’s presidency — and then join a regional consortium for civilian grade enrichment.” The Times also reported that Iran had offered to “dilute its stockpile of uranium on its own soil in the presence of international inspectors.” In exchange, the U.S. would have to “lift financial and banking sanctions and the embargo on [Iran’s] oil sales.”
The problem is that Iran has insisted that the talks be strictly limited to its nuclear program — but the Trump administration is also demanding that Tehran curb the range of its ballistic missiles and stop supporting militias across the region.
In a speech on Tuesday, the ayatollah accused the Trump administration of an “illogical” attempt to interfere with Iran’s self-defense. “Any country without deterrent weapons will be crushed under the feet of its enemies,” he said.
A day later, Vance told Fox News “it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.”
As a result, “senior U.S. officials remain skeptical that the Iranians will agree to a deal that satisfies Mr. Trump, who has shown a growing impatience with the negotiations,” according to the Times.
Other outlets have been blunter. “The Trump administration is closer to a major war in the Middle East than most Americans realize,” Axios reported on Wednesday. “There's no evidence a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran is on the horizon. But there's more and more evidence that a war is imminent.”
What’s next
Last June, Trump also indicated that he would take the next two weeks to decide between continued talks and military action. Following Israel’s lead, U.S. forces attacked three days later.
Citing two Israeli officials, Axios reported on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “pushing for a maximalist scenario targeting regime change as well as Iran's nuclear and missile programs” — and “preparing for a scenario of war within days.”
According to CBS News, Trump has “not yet made a final decision about whether to strike,” but top national security officials have told him that “the military is ready” to attack Iran “as soon as Saturday.”
“The boss is getting fed up,” one Trump adviser told Axios. “Some people around him warn him against going to war with Iran, but I think there is a 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks.”
How that action unfolds — and what it involves — remains to be seen. Experts say Trump might be tempted to attack because the ayatollah has been weakened by age, sanctions, economic upheaval and protests. But dislodging him would not be as simple as, say, toppling Nicolás Maduro.
In fact, “a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month's pinpoint operation in Venezuela,” according to Axios’s sources — with surefire retaliation against U.S. and Israeli targets.
“An aircraft carrier is certainly a dangerous piece of equipment,” the ayatollah said on Tuesday, shortly after Trump ordered a second one to the region. “But more dangerous than the carrier is the weapon that can send it to the bottom of the sea.”
Britain blocking use of air bases Trump says would be needed for strikes on Iran, UK media reports
Brad Lendon, CNN
Fri, February 20, 2026
Flight crew from US Air Force 501st Combat Support Wing and 307th Bomb Wing walk towards a B-52 Stratofortress bomber aircraft at RAF Fairford on September 19, 2025. - HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP/AFP via Getty Images
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has blocked a request from US President Donald Trump to allow US forces to use UK air bases during any preemptive attack on Iran, saying it could break international law, according to multiple reports in British media citing government sources.
According to The Times of London, which first reported the split over airbase access, Starmer has denied the use of RAF Fairford in England and Diego Garcia – the British overseas territory in the Indian Ocean – for any strike on Iran.
The two bases have long served as crucial overseas US military staging posts for operations far from home, with Diego Garcia a key airfield for the US’ heavy bomber fleet.
The Times reports Britain is concerned that allowing the US to use the bases “would be a breach of international law, which makes no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have ‘knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.’”
The Times cited UK government sources. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph also subsequently published their own reports on the UK blocking access to the bases, citing sources.
The UK Ministry of Defence declined to comment on what it called operational matters. “There is a political process ongoing between the US and Iran, which the UK supports. Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority is security in the region,” a government spokesperson said.
American requests to use UK bases for operational purposes historically have been considered on a case-by-case basis, with precise criteria withheld for security reasons under long-standing agreements.
“All decisions on whether to approve foreign nations’ use of military bases in the UK for operational purposes considers the legal basis and policy rationale for any proposed activity,” Veterans Minister Al Carns wrote in response to questions from independent British member of parliament Jeremy Corbyn, according to a January report from the UK Defence Journal.
Starmer and Trump held a phone call on Tuesday evening, with readouts saying the two discussed peace in the Middle East and Europe.
The following day Trump took to his Truth Social platform to withdraw support for a deal that would see sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, the Indian Ocean chain that is home to the joint US-UK Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, handed to Mauritius in return for a 99-year lease on the military base.
CNN has approached the White House for comment.
Britain had split the Chagos Islands from Mauritius before that colony gained independence, something that has been a source of diplomatic friction as well as multiple legal battles with locals who were evicted. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled Britain should return the islands “as rapidly as possible,” so that they could be decolonized.
A deal to return them has been making its way through British government channels since, with London arguing a lease compromise would ward off further expensive and likely futile legal battles while maintaining military access in the Indian Ocean.
After initially opposing the UK-Mauritius deal, Trump in early February said it was the “best” Britain could get under the circumstances.
But as the US has been surging forces into the region for a possible attack on Iran, Trump reversed course, saying in a Truth Social post that Starmer is “making a big mistake” in agreeing to the lease deal with Mauritius.
“Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature,” Trump’s post said.
But just a day earlier, the US State Department issued a statement saying in part that Washington “supports the decision of the United Kingdom to proceed with its agreement with Mauritius.”
Asked about the discrepancy between the Truth Social post and the State Department statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president’s post should be taken as the “policy” of the Trump administration.
In his social media post, Trump directly referenced the two UK airbases, cited by British media, as important in a possible strike on Iran.
“It may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump wrote.
Neither Diego Garcia nor Fairford, the key forward operating base for US strategic bombers in Europe, was used in last June’s one-time B-2 bomber strike on Iranian nuclear sites. In that case, the stealth bombers flew a round trip of about 37 hours from their home base in Missouri.
But analysts are expecting that any new US attack on Iran might be a much longer campaign, possibly of weeks or more.
In such a campaign, having the B-2s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers, using bases thousands of miles closer to Iran would enable quicker turnarounds to rearm and refuel for more strikes.
While the US may have access to other bases in friendly countries closer to Iran, using them could put its prized heavy bomber fleet in reach of retaliatory Iranian missile strikes.
CNN’s Christian Edwards contributed reporting.
Fri, February 20, 2026
Flight crew from US Air Force 501st Combat Support Wing and 307th Bomb Wing walk towards a B-52 Stratofortress bomber aircraft at RAF Fairford on September 19, 2025. - HENRY NICHOLLS/AFP/AFP via Getty Images
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has blocked a request from US President Donald Trump to allow US forces to use UK air bases during any preemptive attack on Iran, saying it could break international law, according to multiple reports in British media citing government sources.
According to The Times of London, which first reported the split over airbase access, Starmer has denied the use of RAF Fairford in England and Diego Garcia – the British overseas territory in the Indian Ocean – for any strike on Iran.
The two bases have long served as crucial overseas US military staging posts for operations far from home, with Diego Garcia a key airfield for the US’ heavy bomber fleet.
The Times reports Britain is concerned that allowing the US to use the bases “would be a breach of international law, which makes no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have ‘knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.’”
The Times cited UK government sources. The BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph also subsequently published their own reports on the UK blocking access to the bases, citing sources.
The UK Ministry of Defence declined to comment on what it called operational matters. “There is a political process ongoing between the US and Iran, which the UK supports. Iran must never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and our priority is security in the region,” a government spokesperson said.
American requests to use UK bases for operational purposes historically have been considered on a case-by-case basis, with precise criteria withheld for security reasons under long-standing agreements.
“All decisions on whether to approve foreign nations’ use of military bases in the UK for operational purposes considers the legal basis and policy rationale for any proposed activity,” Veterans Minister Al Carns wrote in response to questions from independent British member of parliament Jeremy Corbyn, according to a January report from the UK Defence Journal.
Starmer and Trump held a phone call on Tuesday evening, with readouts saying the two discussed peace in the Middle East and Europe.
The following day Trump took to his Truth Social platform to withdraw support for a deal that would see sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, the Indian Ocean chain that is home to the joint US-UK Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, handed to Mauritius in return for a 99-year lease on the military base.
CNN has approached the White House for comment.
Britain had split the Chagos Islands from Mauritius before that colony gained independence, something that has been a source of diplomatic friction as well as multiple legal battles with locals who were evicted. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled Britain should return the islands “as rapidly as possible,” so that they could be decolonized.
A deal to return them has been making its way through British government channels since, with London arguing a lease compromise would ward off further expensive and likely futile legal battles while maintaining military access in the Indian Ocean.
After initially opposing the UK-Mauritius deal, Trump in early February said it was the “best” Britain could get under the circumstances.
But as the US has been surging forces into the region for a possible attack on Iran, Trump reversed course, saying in a Truth Social post that Starmer is “making a big mistake” in agreeing to the lease deal with Mauritius.
“Prime Minister Starmer is losing control of this important Island by claims of entities never known of before. In our opinion, they are fictitious in nature,” Trump’s post said.
But just a day earlier, the US State Department issued a statement saying in part that Washington “supports the decision of the United Kingdom to proceed with its agreement with Mauritius.”
Asked about the discrepancy between the Truth Social post and the State Department statement, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president’s post should be taken as the “policy” of the Trump administration.
In his social media post, Trump directly referenced the two UK airbases, cited by British media, as important in a possible strike on Iran.
“It may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump wrote.
Neither Diego Garcia nor Fairford, the key forward operating base for US strategic bombers in Europe, was used in last June’s one-time B-2 bomber strike on Iranian nuclear sites. In that case, the stealth bombers flew a round trip of about 37 hours from their home base in Missouri.
But analysts are expecting that any new US attack on Iran might be a much longer campaign, possibly of weeks or more.
In such a campaign, having the B-2s, as well as B-1 and B-52 bombers, using bases thousands of miles closer to Iran would enable quicker turnarounds to rearm and refuel for more strikes.
While the US may have access to other bases in friendly countries closer to Iran, using them could put its prized heavy bomber fleet in reach of retaliatory Iranian missile strikes.
CNN’s Christian Edwards contributed reporting.
Trump Leading U.S. Into War To End A Weapons Program He Claimed He Already ‘Obliterated’
S.V. Date
Thu, February 19, 2026
HuffPost
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has put the United States on the verge of war against Iran with the goal of ending that nation’s nuclear weapons program, less than eight months after proclaiming he had “completely and totally obliterated” that same program.
The United States Navy already has one carrier strike group within aircraft and missile range of Iran in the Arabian Sea. Another is underway to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it would also be in range and available to protect Israel and American bases in the region from retaliatory strikes.
Trump told reporters on Air Force One Thursday that Iran had to “make a deal” in the coming days. “I would think that would be enough time: 10-15 days. Pretty much maximum,” he said on his way to a rally in Georgia.
That language is nearly identical to what he said on June 19, 2025: Iran had to make an agreement to abandon its nuclear program “within the next two weeks.” Trump, though, ordered the military to hit three weapons sites in Iran after just two days.
Eight months later, Trump has not explained why a second attack on Iran is necessary now if the country’s nuclear weapons program was, in fact, destroyed by his air strike last year.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he told the nation in a White House speech hours after the June 21, 2025 attack.
Politics: Trump Claims 'Peace' With Iran Will Come While Threatening Further War
“We obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, making it impossible for them to have a nuclear weapon, which they would have had probably in about two months from then,” he said again in a Sept. 29, 2025, photo opportunity with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Indeed, the White House even posted a page on its website accusing those who questioned Trump’s use of that word of pushing “fake news.”
Trump was specifically asked last week, given those earlier claims, why it was necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities again. His answer, however, was difficult to understand.
“Well, you could get whatever the dust is down there. Uh, that’s really the least of the mission. If we do it, that would be the least of the mission. But we’d, you know, probably grab whatever’s ― whatever’s left. It has been obliterated, as you know,” he told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One on his way to conduct a political rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
Thursday morning, Trump told his “Board of Peace” meeting that discussions with Iran are continuing but that Iran needs to make “a deal.”
“They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they must make a deal or, if that doesn’t happen, I maybe can understand if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn’t,” he said.
Representatives from Iran and the United States met Tuesday in Geneva, Switzerland, but were unable to reach a deal. Progress towards any agreement seems halting at best.
Trump also appears to be ignoring Congress entirely as he moves forward with what could be a major war. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who went to Congress for authorization to attack Iraq in 2002, Trump does not appear to have given congressional leaders an update on his intentions, even as his buildup of Air Force and Navy planes and ships in the area continues.
Global: Israel Considering Military Attack On Iran Amid Stalled Nuclear Bomb Talks: Reports
Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, but presidents since World War II have increasingly taken military action on their own initiative.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 in an attempt to rein that in, but the law only requires a president to notify congressional leaders after the military engagement has already taken place.
S.V. Date
Thu, February 19, 2026
HuffPost
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has put the United States on the verge of war against Iran with the goal of ending that nation’s nuclear weapons program, less than eight months after proclaiming he had “completely and totally obliterated” that same program.
The United States Navy already has one carrier strike group within aircraft and missile range of Iran in the Arabian Sea. Another is underway to the Eastern Mediterranean, where it would also be in range and available to protect Israel and American bases in the region from retaliatory strikes.
Trump told reporters on Air Force One Thursday that Iran had to “make a deal” in the coming days. “I would think that would be enough time: 10-15 days. Pretty much maximum,” he said on his way to a rally in Georgia.
That language is nearly identical to what he said on June 19, 2025: Iran had to make an agreement to abandon its nuclear program “within the next two weeks.” Trump, though, ordered the military to hit three weapons sites in Iran after just two days.
Eight months later, Trump has not explained why a second attack on Iran is necessary now if the country’s nuclear weapons program was, in fact, destroyed by his air strike last year.
“Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” he told the nation in a White House speech hours after the June 21, 2025 attack.
Politics: Trump Claims 'Peace' With Iran Will Come While Threatening Further War
“We obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity, making it impossible for them to have a nuclear weapon, which they would have had probably in about two months from then,” he said again in a Sept. 29, 2025, photo opportunity with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Indeed, the White House even posted a page on its website accusing those who questioned Trump’s use of that word of pushing “fake news.”
Trump was specifically asked last week, given those earlier claims, why it was necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities again. His answer, however, was difficult to understand.
“Well, you could get whatever the dust is down there. Uh, that’s really the least of the mission. If we do it, that would be the least of the mission. But we’d, you know, probably grab whatever’s ― whatever’s left. It has been obliterated, as you know,” he told reporters as he prepared to board Air Force One on his way to conduct a political rally at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
Thursday morning, Trump told his “Board of Peace” meeting that discussions with Iran are continuing but that Iran needs to make “a deal.”
“They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they must make a deal or, if that doesn’t happen, I maybe can understand if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. But bad things will happen if it doesn’t,” he said.
Representatives from Iran and the United States met Tuesday in Geneva, Switzerland, but were unable to reach a deal. Progress towards any agreement seems halting at best.
Trump also appears to be ignoring Congress entirely as he moves forward with what could be a major war. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who went to Congress for authorization to attack Iraq in 2002, Trump does not appear to have given congressional leaders an update on his intentions, even as his buildup of Air Force and Navy planes and ships in the area continues.
Global: Israel Considering Military Attack On Iran Amid Stalled Nuclear Bomb Talks: Reports
Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, but presidents since World War II have increasingly taken military action on their own initiative.
Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 in an attempt to rein that in, but the law only requires a president to notify congressional leaders after the military engagement has already taken place.
