According to two U.S. officials, U.S. military forces in the Middle East are prepared to launch a large-scale strike on Iran within 96 hours should President Trump issue orders. Sources indicate that current troop levels are sufficient to respond to potential attacks; this operation could extend beyond limited “mowing-the-grass” strikes targeting radar and transmitter installations, potentially encompassing Iranian energy infrastructure, military bases, and nuclear facilities.
Officials note that Trump has not yet made a decision, though he appears inclined toward significant action—though he has previously withdrawn from such plans at the last moment. The White House declined to comment, while the Pentagon stated only that military operations would be planned and executed in accordance with presidential directives.
U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that both Iran and the Houthis view the risk of renewed strikes as high. Should the United States and Israel act, Tehran and the Houthis may retaliate immediately against American personnel and facilities, possibly extending beyond regional boundaries. A memo dated October 23 noted a marked increase in Iranian planning targeting U.S. personnel, with operations now at an advanced stage. However, officials believe Iran is unlikely to initiate escalation at this time, though it would likely respond if first struck.
The United States is quietly withdrawing some diplomatic personnel from the region: the embassy in Riyadh is undergoing orderly evacuation, with other facilities expected to follow or scale back operations; non-essential military personnel originally scheduled for rotation to the Middle East will no longer be deployed. U.S. military commander Cooper visited the Strait of Hormuz, where American forces continue to enforce the blockade of Iranian ports and assist maritime traffic. While oil tanker movements have increased, global oil prices remain elevated. Officials acknowledge the situation in the strait is long-term "unsustainable," and without diplomatic progress, it could serve as a rationale for military action under a Trump administration. Yet external observers question whether the White House possesses a comprehensive strategy to end any ensuing conflict.
In Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing for a new strike on Iran, but the U.S. has urged delay until joint operations are ready. Trump has not agreed, partly because the Israeli defense chief believes such action could undermine domestic electoral prospects. Israel has temporarily postponed its plans but remains prepared for coordinated operations, possibly after the U.S. midterm elections, contingent upon American missile defense support. Intelligence assessments suggest Israel lacks a clear strategic objective. Netanyahu, however, has reportedly instructed his team to aim at toppling the Iranian regime. Reports indicate that operational plans are already in place, awaiting Trump’s approval.
What is most notable is not the claim that “plans are ready,” but rather how war decisions are deeply entangled with domestic politics and allied timelines. Anonymous briefings, White House silence, and Pentagon procedural responses suggest this reflects pressure-building and contingency planning—not an imminent declaration of war. The timing may align with post-midterm election dynamics and Israeli electoral considerations, indicating that military options are not being driven solely by security calculations.
Even more concerning is the lack of clarity in strategic objectives. The target list includes energy assets, military installations, and nuclear facilities, yet no coherent post-strike framework is evident: how would retaliation cycles be prevented? The withdrawal of U.S. embassy staff and reduction of military presence following strikes themselves signal heightened risk. The unsustainable conditions in the Strait of Hormuz and persistently high oil prices underscore the potential for economic and security risks to spill over. Israel advocates for joint action, but intelligence assessments conclude it lacks a defined strategic goal. If the U.S. allows itself to be guided by allied timelines, it risks falling into a pattern of military engagement driven not by necessity, but by the appearance of progress.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1880099356075012/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.