Trump Directs Advisers to Explore U.S. Military Options Against Iran Amid Geneva Talks

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) - President Trump has directed senior advisers to weigh U.S. military options against Iran, including an initial targeted strike followed by the potential for a broader assault, if diplomatic efforts fail, according to reporting by The New York Times.

The deliberations come as negotiators from the United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva on Thursday for last-minute discussions aimed at resolving disputes over Tehran’s nuclear program without resorting to military conflict.

Officials briefed on internal White House discussions said that Trump has emphasized that, should diplomacy or limited strikes not achieve the administration’s objectives, the United States may escalate to a larger-scale operation later in the year.

The targeted measures under consideration reportedly include strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, ballistic missile programs, and the headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Any subsequent broader military campaign would be aimed at “targeting high-ranking officials within the regime,” the officials said, while acknowledging doubts within the administration about whether airstrikes alone could achieve such an outcome.

The deliberations unfolded during a White House Situation Room meeting on Wednesday that included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.

Sources described the discussions as focused on operational assessments, current conditions on the ground in Iran, and the feasibility and risks of various military options. General Caine reportedly provided operational perspectives without advocating a specific policy outcome, while Ratcliffe discussed intelligence assessments and possible scenarios.

Advisers noted that the president has considered several pathways short of full-scale war, including a very limited nuclear enrichment program for medical purposes.

This proposal, advanced by Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, would allow Iran to continue producing nuclear material for medical research while shuttering facilities capable of supporting weaponization. The plan remains under discussion and it is unclear whether either the United States or Iran would formally accept it.

Iranian officials, however, have reiterated their stance that the country is not prepared to abandon its “right” to produce nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking in an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, stated, “I believe that still there is a good chance to have a diplomatic solution… So there is no need for any military buildup, and military buildup cannot help it and cannot pressurize us,” according to The New York Times.

The military buildup around Iran is substantial. Two U.S. aircraft carrier groups, along with fighter jets, bombers, refueling aircraft, and antimissile batteries, have been deployed to the region.

One of the carriers, the Gerald R. Ford, was reported south of Italy in the Mediterranean and was expected to move off the coast of Israel. U.S. officials describe this as the largest concentration of American forces in the region since the preparations for the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Advisers also discussed the complexity of possible operations, highlighting that any U.S. commando raids on deeply buried nuclear or missile facilities would carry higher risks than previous operations, such as the January mission to capture President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.

Army, Navy, and Air Force officials reportedly raised concerns over the potential impact on the readiness of U.S. forces in the region, including Patriot antimissile batteries, transport aircraft, and surveillance capabilities. Plans for such raids have been temporarily shelved.

Security officials have further cautioned that Iranian retaliation could extend beyond its borders.

According to The New York Times, U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are monitoring signals suggesting that Iran might direct proxies to conduct terrorist attacks against American targets in Europe and the Middle East if strikes occur.

Potential actors include Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, and Al Qaeda affiliates. While no specific plots have been identified, heightened communications activity—referred to by analysts as “chatter”—indicates some level of attack planning and coordination.

Colin P. Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, an intelligence consulting firm, told The New York Times that “Iran can work through proxies to conduct terrorist attacks that will raise costs for any U.S. military campaign.”

Officials emphasized that such attacks could be directed at less-defended targets, even as Patriot batteries and other defenses have been reinforced to protect tens of thousands of U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

The administration is also navigating diplomatic sensitivities with regional partners. Arab leaders have reportedly contacted Washington to express concern over remarks by U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee regarding Israel’s territorial claims. Officials say these communications could complicate efforts to secure regional support—or at least neutrality—for potential U.S. military action.

Within the White House, discussions of potential strikes are described as layered with differing perspectives. Secretary Rubio and other aides reportedly cited multiple rationales for possible military action, including limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, protecting protesters killed by Iranian forces, neutralizing missiles that could threaten Israel, and curtailing Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Vice President Vance, while advocating caution, pressed military and intelligence officials for detailed risk assessments and operational perspectives.

Recent proposals under negotiation include a compromise allowing Iran to maintain a very small-scale nuclear enrichment program strictly for medical purposes. Under this plan, Tehran could continue producing isotopes at the Tehran Research Reactor for cancer treatment and research, while facilities enabling weapons development would be shuttered.

If implemented, U.S. officials would characterize the outcome as Iran halting weapon-capable enrichment. The proposal’s acceptance is uncertain, as Iranian officials have yet to directly address it.

Observers note that the diplomatic and military calculus is compounded by concerns over Iran’s ability to escalate conflicts through proxies. The New York Times reports that officials fear renewed attacks by Houthi forces in the Red Sea, Hezbollah sleeper cells in Europe, and potential Al Qaeda operations.

The UN Security Council has previously highlighted Saif al-Adel, Al Qaeda’s de facto leader, as active in Iran and directing subordinates to reactivate cells across multiple countries. Analysts warn that external operations could be triggered if Iran perceives an existential threat to its regime.

In parallel with military considerations, administration officials have evaluated the strategic implications of different strike options. Limited strikes are intended to signal U.S. resolve without triggering broader regional escalation. However, officials cautioned that Iran could respond unpredictably, and the logistical and intelligence demands of such operations are significant.

Some senior U.S. military and counterterrorism advisers have highlighted that the planning for a potential campaign against Iran exceeds the scale and complexity of the operation conducted in Venezuela, emphasizing the high stakes and operational uncertainties involved.

As the Geneva negotiations approach, the positions of both sides appear firm. U.S. negotiators, including Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have emphasized “zero enrichment” as the only acceptable outcome.

Iranian officials, however, assert their right to produce nuclear fuel, underscoring a fundamental gap that may influence whether military action is pursued. While discussions continue, U.S. officials maintain readiness to implement limited strikes as a pressure tactic if diplomacy fails.

Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, cautioned that military action could destabilize the region and endanger U.S. forces. He called for transparency, urging the president to outline the necessity, risks, and strategy of any campaign to the American public, according to The New York Times.

European officials attending recent security forums expressed skepticism that military pressure alone would compel Iran to scale back its nuclear program, highlighting the limits of force as a negotiating tool. The broader regional and international context, including the potential for proxy retaliation, reinforces the complexity of the decision-making process within the White House.