- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- usa@midwest.social
- usa@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- usa@midwest.social
- usa@lemmy.ca
WASHINGTON—President Trump is leaning toward expanding U.S. military operations in Iran after days of briefings from top aides, U.S. officials said. Options include stepping up airstrikes, sending ground forces to seize Iranian islands near the Strait of Hormuz and bombing a fortified site that could be used for covert nuclear work.
Trump hosted a Situation Room meeting Tuesday evening to discuss the potential seizure of Kharg Island and other territory along the Strait of Hormuz using U.S. troops, as well as the potential bombing of a tunnel complex at Pickaxe Mountain, a nuclear-linked site the U.S. has yet to target. Expanding airstrikes against more targets in Iran, including energy sites, also remains a possibility.
The discussion was one of multiple formal and informal conversations Trump has held in recent days with senior officials including Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the officials said.
The U.S. military said it launched two waves of airstrikes against Iran on Wednesday, targeting Iran’s ability to threaten vessels transiting the strait. “We’ll find out whether or not we settle with them, or we just finish it off,” Trump said at an industry event shortly after the second wave of attacks began.
The military also has been enforcing a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, turning away several ships from the coast on Wednesday. In one case, the military said it fired hellfire missiles at the smokestake of a Curacao-flagged ship that was trying to sail to Kharg Island. The military said the ship ignored its warnings to turn around, so it was disabled.
The president hasn’t made a final decision on next steps in the war, officials said, and he insists privately and publicly that he would prefer resolving his dispute with Iran diplomatically. But Iran hasn’t capitulated to Trump’s demands that it surrender its nuclear stockpile after weeks of military strikes and an interim deal that would have allowed Tehran to make billions of dollars selling oil on the open market. The diplomatic gridlock has prompted Trump to ask aides for new, escalatory options that could force Iran to surrender, or at least promise to stop attacking commercial vessels in the strait.
Some U.S. officials said Trump is reluctant to commit ground forces. He has repeatedly walked back his biggest public threats, including taking Kharg Island and Iran’s oil industry. But if Trump were to approve of the plans, it would usher in the most dangerous phase of the nearly five-month war and drag the U.S. deeper into a growing Middle East conflict, one that would likely lead to higher gas prices and complicate Republicans’ plans for the midterms.
Trump has made candid statements about the war in recent days, confirming that he is considering new military options. While officials say he is leaning toward expanded operations, he could change his mind. And his open discussion of options also could be used to try to scare Iran back to the negotiating table. “We’re going to take out Pickaxe Mountain,” Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt this week. On Tuesday, shortly before the Situation Room meeting, Trump told Fox News that seizing Kharg Island was unlikely but not ruled out. “If we degrade them far enough and deep enough back, I would do that,” he added. Axios reported earlier on the Situation Room discussions.
The strikes Wednesday marked the fifth-straight day of attacks on Iran, following the collapse of an interim peace agreement that had lifted the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports and paused sanctions on Tehran’s oil sales. But Trump declared the ceasefire over after Iran attacked ships in the strait, reimposing the blockade and authorizing fresh strikes.
In an interview that aired Wednesday, Vance told podcaster Joe Rogan the strikes were aimed at forcing Iran back to the negotiating table.
“We’re not just going to bomb and bomb and bomb. We’re going to try to use our military force as one of the many tools that we have to solve the problem,” Vance said.
A green light on either a Pickaxe Mountain or Kharg Island operation would be Trump’s riskiest bet of the conflict.
Pickaxe is a heavily fortified underground site consisting of tunnels built into granite some 300- to 475-feet beneath the surface of a mountain peak—far deeper than Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, which the U.S. and Israel bombed last summer. The site is believed to be incomplete.
The depth of the Pickaxe tunnels means they might not be vulnerable to direct hits from the U.S. military’s bunker-buster bombs. Whereas U.S. attacks on Fordow in 2025 targeted ventilation shafts that went straight down to the halls of the site, publicly available satellite imagery hasn’t exposed the definite locations of any ventilation sites at Pickaxe.
That doesn’t mean Pickaxe has no vulnerabilities. Construction at the site means it depends upon power supplies, equipment deliveries and construction personnel that could be sabotaged.
“If they make any move” toward turning Pickaxe into a functioning nuclear site, “we immediately go and do whatever we have to do, but they haven’t,” Trump said Tuesday on Fox News. “Nobody knows if they even are doing anything at Pickaxe, it’s just something that comes up.” Trump added that U.S. bunker-buster bombs “can go deep.”
Attempting to seize Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil-export hub, would harm the country’s oil industry but it also would put American forces directly in harm’s way. Troops would be easy targets for Iranian missiles and drones, U.S. officials and analysts say.
Retired Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie said the U.S. should still consider a Kharg Island operation. “That’s something we should think about doing because possession of Iranian soil would be a significant factor in future negotiations with Iran,” he said Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
Trump is also discussing ideas to occupy other islands along the Strait to assist with shipping and to destroy heavily militarized territory, with analysts pointing to Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb as the likeliest targets. U.S. troops would also be vulnerable in those locations, according to the officials and analysts.


It’s looking more and more like the “talks”/ceasefire was another lie to fool the Iranians. They were used to get their ducks all in a row. Try to win over the media, get as much on their side and plan more military strikes from different angles. They just bombed beside a kids cancer hospital…
U.S. is no longer just Israel’s puppet, they’re quickly turning into Israel.
The US was never Israel’s puppet, Israel has always been a colonial outpost of the west, armed, trained and funded by the US. If the US decided to stop supporting Israel it wouldn’t exist.
That was the past, yep, and maybe will be the future… But Netanhayu is pulling the strings at the minute.
He is definitely leading the way, pointing the direction and has already numerous times put the US into uncomfortable positions that Trump had to try and get out of (not that he tried too hard).
Don’t count britain or western europe out of quickly turning into Israel. It’s going to keep getting worse.
I don’t doubt it.
Don’t forget who trained the IDF. Everything the IDF do was taught to them by the British military, based on their experiences with the Troubles.
There’s a video clip of JD Vance saying that US agreeing to the MoU was a farce on June 30. Trump told the US congress that he started a new war with Iran on July 7, so that he can have a new 60 day legal deadline. CENTCOM has announced 8 rounds of US conducting attacks against Iran since July 7.
https://nitter.net/TheCradleMedia/status/2072273224239350058#m
As the first comment on that says… ‘The world already knows how deceitful they are.’
Iran never trusted the usa , they was not fooled
Trump just wanted a break for the 4th of July celebrations.
Did they fool anyone? Why would Iran have ever listened to a word they say? If they got fooled they should hire me. I could scry into the psyche of the trillion dollar army and help them avoid such foolishness in the future
Didn’t they? US and its zionist entity were racking up the violations for weeks (ref) while Iran sat on its hands and engaged in “the process”. Why not attack sooner?
Either 1) Iran was fooled, 2) Iran felt it badly needed the time to do some preparations of its own and judged this was a good trade-off in terms of the breathing room it would give their enemy, or 3) Iran has no will to fight the US and just wanted to stop the bombing regardless of US sincerity.
1 and 3 suggest appeasement types have too much power. 2 could be said to be a valid choice but I question exactly what it was they were preparing as I believe their missile cities could continue to operate even under US bombardment and they have to know the US would escalate on resumption of hostilities and would use the time to refill its oil stocks and delay the collapse from their main pressure point (not to mention resetting the 90 day clock on the war powers act). So minor production of weapons seems a poor trade-off. Unless they’ll soon unveil nukes I’m not sure it was strategically sound though I don’t have all the information they have and I’m happy to admit it so maybe the delay allowed them to do necessary things. But it also bought the US valuable time before the oil crisis hits and dangerously convinced the US they can string the Iranians along, practice attack->negotiate->attack and control the pace of the fighting to US designs, stepping out when they want and re-engaging when they want. Unless you have overwhelming material battlefield dominance against your enemy it is necessary to manage their image of you to create deterrence and pave the way for a settlement. If you cannot resolve it on the battlefield decisively and require and agreement by both sides then you again must manage the image they have of you to create favorable conditions for your negotiation of terms. If they perceive you as weak you’ll get lesser terms.
I just really want to assume that too much information is too freely available and too many actors are sympathetic to Iran for them to have been unsophisticated on the world stage. If they had 50 burner accounts they could have gone to twitter and been like “if we’re being honest, what should Iran do in this situation?” and baited an interaction from a 20th century history major who’d make a thread about how little you can trust America in negotiations.
I also think about how I see this idea floated around here that a US ground invasion is a very doomed proposition because of the geography, Iran’s competence, and the like. Violence still isn’t fun of preferable. If I feel really good about my martial arts training and some loser in boat shoes starts getting in my face for looking at his girl, I still don’t really want to throw him. Even if you’re killing Americans 50:1, America is still targeting schools and hospitals and I’d rather not lose dozens of soldiers if the pen will stop the war just as well. Which is to say 3 ought to be a society’s default mode of being. In that frame, a US oil crisis could arouse a ground invasion which would be cringe if it is possible to be prevented.
Which is to say I would respect them if their rationale is anything before they decide that butchering people is the answer to everything, as likely as it seems to be the answer to the mad dog and its mad dog attacking you