Trump's Iran War Plans: Negotiation Tactic or Real Threat?

In a Pentagon briefing room during Trump's first term, defense officials made an unprecedented decision: they showed White House advisers their war plans for Iran. The strategy was counterintuitive—by revealing the risks and complexities of large-scale conflict, they hoped to prevent it. The gambit worked. Twice, Trump weighed ordering strikes on Iran, only to be talked down by his team.

Today, those same war plans aren't being used to prevent conflict—they're being used to prepare for it.

*More than 100 aircraft are streaming toward the Middle East. The world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has abandoned its pressure campaign against Venezuela and is racing toward Iranian waters. Three destroyers and two guided-missile submarines will join the armada, expected to be within striking range by Sunday.

"I guess I can say I am considering that," Trump told reporters yesterday when asked about a limited military strike. But behind the presidential bravado lies a more complex reality: the administration has yet to articulate exactly what it wants this massive show of force to achieve.

The Visible Buildup

This time, the Pentagon isn't trying to hide its movements. Flight trackers have captured dozens of US military aircraft heading toward the region—a stark contrast to last summer's stealth B-2 bomber strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, when "no one was tracking them," according to a military commander familiar with the operation.

The visibility appears intentional. Admiral Brad Cooper, who leads US Central Command, sat in on US-Iran talks in Oman earlier this month—a flex of military muscle wrapped in diplomatic protocol. Even Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, not known for measured responses, struck a conciliatory tone: "The president is a negotiator looking for a deal; it would be wise for Iran to see that deal."

But there's a ticking clock. The USS Ford has been deployed since last June, approaching one of the longest carrier deployments in naval history. "We can't keep the force out that long," a former defense official warned. Like Chekhov's gun, military assets deployed in the first act must eventually be fired—or withdrawn at considerable political cost.

Four Paths to War

Based on interviews with current and former defense officials, the US is considering four distinct military approaches, each with different risks and outcomes.

Option 1: Leadership Decapitation

Trump has long hinted at targeting Iran's leadership directly. As early as June 2025, he described Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as "an easy target," claiming he knew "EXACTLY where he was sheltered." Unlike the bedroom raid that captured Venezuela's Maduro, this would likely involve precision airstrikes on specific individuals after Iran's air defenses are neutralized.

The appeal is clear: removing Iran's leadership could embolden the country's protest movement, which faced brutal suppression in recent weeks that killed thousands. But the risks are enormous. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) could seize control, potentially steering Iran toward an even more hostile posture. And with little left to lose, the regime's military response could be devastating—including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil flows.

Option 2: Ballistic Missile Program

In December, Trump threatened strikes if Iran continued building ballistic missiles. This option would target production networks, storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure—what Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute calls "softer targets" that could be hit "over a protracted period of time."

The challenge: Iran has prioritized rebuilding its missile capabilities over its nuclear program since the June strikes, according to high-resolution satellite imagery. Even successful strikes would only limit Iran to missiles already positioned on mobile launchers, and the facilities could be rebuilt within months.

Option 3: Nuclear Facilities

Trump's most frequently mentioned target remains Iran's nuclear program. "NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS," he posted on Truth Social in January, warning that "the next attack will be far worse!" Attacking hardened underground facilities would require B-2 bombers carrying GBU-57 "bunker buster" bombs—the same approach used in June's strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.

But launching a second nuclear facility attack within a year raises uncomfortable questions about the first operation's effectiveness, especially given Trump's own claims that the program had been "obliterated." As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mick Mulroy noted: "We can degrade something. We can destroy something. But that doesn't mean they can't rebuild it."

Option 4: Limited Retaliation

The most restrained option would involve targeted strikes on military installations and air defenses—a measured response designed to impose costs without triggering full-scale war. This approach would likely pose the least immediate risk to US forces and regional stability.

The Limits of Military Power

For all the impressive hardware converging on the Middle East, this isn't 2003. The Iraq invasion involved five carrier strike groups and roughly 170,000 ground troops. Today's buildup, while substantial, lacks the ground component necessary for regime change or permanent occupation.

This constraint shapes what military action can realistically achieve. "Every military option is not about just what we can do, but about protecting ourselves and our interests during the inevitable Iranian response," a former commander explained. Iran's recent military exercise in the Strait of Hormuz—and the Shahed-139 drone that approached the USS Abraham Lincoln earlier this month before being shot down—serve as reminders of Tehran's retaliatory capabilities.

The Global Stakes

Any military confrontation with Iran would reverberate far beyond the Middle East. Oil markets would likely spike, affecting global economic recovery. US allies in Europe and Asia would face pressure to choose sides, potentially fracturing coalition relationships built over decades.

The timing is particularly significant. With ongoing tensions in Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific, a Middle East conflict could stretch US military resources thin, potentially emboldening adversaries elsewhere. China and Russia are undoubtedly watching to see how far Trump is willing to go—and what it might mean for their own territorial ambitions.

The Negotiator's Dilemma

Despite three weeks of talks between the US and Iran, with Oman serving as intermediary, the two sides remain far apart on what constitutes an acceptable deal. Iran wants sanctions relief and security guarantees; the US demands permanent limits on nuclear and missile programs plus an end to proxy support.

"I think there is a real intent to use this force if they cannot get an agreement that is acceptable to the United States," Mulroy assessed. The military buildup creates leverage, but it also creates momentum toward conflict that becomes harder to reverse with each passing day.