President Trump is seriously considering launching attacks against energy targets in Iran in the next few days, but hasn't given final orders to do it, a U.S. official told Axios on Friday.
Why it matters: A new U.S. bombing campaign in Iran against energy and infrastructure targets would be aimed at trying to get the Iranians to agree to the United States' terms in ongoing ceasefire negotiations.
The strikes could also involve the Israeli military for the first time in many weeks, and such an escalation would likely lead to Iranian missile attacks on Israel.
CBS News and the Wall Street Journal first reported about the potential strikes.
What they're saying: At the start of Friday's Cabinet meeting, Trump alluded to the potential attack, saying: "Well, we'll be hitting them very hard and, you know, at some point they're going to say, we just can't take it anymore."
He added that the more the U.S. conducts strikes, the weaker the Iranians get "and then they peter out."
"As President Trump said at his Cabinet meeting today, the United States will win, and Iran will not have a nuclear weapon under his watch," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios.
Between the lines: A U.S. official said the Iranians have been "very aggressive" in recent days.
Some U.S. officials were stunned by how much the Iranians were willing to escalate.
After their surprise missile attack against a U.S. base in Jordan on Wednesday, the Iranians launched additional attacks against U.S. forces in the region, a U.S. official said, declining to give more details.
The Iranians also attacked commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.
President Trump threatened several days ago that any new attacks on ships would be answered with U.S. strikes on power plants and bridges in Iran, including in Tehran.
The other side: Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, quoted a senior security official saying that U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure targets would be "an act of madness."
"We have prepared a broad response plan that includes strikes against the Zionist regime's critical infrastructure and U.S. energy infrastructure in the region, and we are fully prepared to carry it out," the Iranian security official told Tasnim.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Facts Only
* President Trump is considering launching attacks against energy targets in Iran in the next few days.
* Final orders for these attacks have not been given.
* The potential bombing campaign aims to secure agreement on U.S. terms in ceasefire negotiations.
* The strikes could involve the Israeli military.
* Escalation could lead to Iranian missile attacks on Israel.
* President Trump alluded to hitting Iran "very hard" and stating that more U.S. strikes would cause Iranians to "peter out."
* The White House Press Secretary stated the United States will win and Iran will not have a nuclear weapon under watch.
* An official within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards suggested U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure targets would be an act of madness.
* The Iranian security official stated they have a response plan including strikes against critical infrastructure and U.S. energy infrastructure in the region.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative presented involves a direct tension between a potential coercive strategy aimed at achieving diplomatic goals and the calculated risk of severe escalation. A key dynamic is the divergent risk assessments: one side projects an expectation of eventual capitulation through sustained force, while the other anticipates an immediate, maximalist counter-response based on existential threats to established regional power structures. The framing deliberately sets up a conflict between perceived strategic victory and imminent catastrophic retaliation. The mention of potential strikes involving Israel introduces a layer of complexity where regional actors perceive self-defense, transforming a political negotiation into a security dilemma that multiplies the stakes for all involved parties. The apparent acceptance by some within Iran of a "broad response plan" suggests an established framework for severe reciprocal action exists, regardless of the immediate stated objective. The pattern suggests that in high-stakes asymmetrical conflicts, stated intent is secondary to perceived capability and the readiness to execute overwhelming force.
What factors shift this dynamic from potential conflict to realized catastrophe? What external or internal conditions determine which side's assessment of "madness" prevails in a crisis scenario?
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be a standard news report synthesizing reported statements regarding potential military actions and geopolitical escalations, exhibiting the typical pattern of human journalistic synthesis across multiple sources.