A new report emerging ahead of scheduled diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran has revealed that the US military is actively preparing contingency plans for a prolonged military campaign against Tehran, should President Donald Trump authorise an attack. The preparations, described by two US officials speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, suggest that any potential conflict could extend over several weeks and escalate far beyond previous confrontations between the two countries.
The disclosure comes at a critical moment, just days before US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are set to meet Iranian representatives in Geneva on Tuesday. The talks, mediated by officials from Oman, are being viewed as a significant opportunity for diplomacy amid rising tensions. However, the existence of detailed military planning has increased pressure surrounding the negotiations, underscoring how fragile the diplomatic process remains.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged that while President Trump prefers a negotiated settlement with Iran, reaching an agreement remains extremely challenging. At the same time, Washington has continued to strengthen its military posture across the Middle East, fueling concerns that diplomatic efforts could be overshadowed by the possibility of armed confrontation.
According to US officials, the Pentagon has begun deploying additional military assets to the region, including another aircraft carrier, thousands of troops, advanced fighter aircraft, guided-missile destroyers, and other strategic capabilities designed both for offensive strikes and defensive operations. The expanded presence signals preparation for a range of scenarios, particularly air and naval operations, rather than a large-scale ground invasion.
President Trump further heightened tensions during remarks delivered after a military event at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where he publicly suggested that a change in Iran’s government might ultimately be desirable. Although he did not specify any alternative leadership, he indicated that potential successors existed and criticised decades of unsuccessful negotiations with Tehran. Despite such rhetoric, Trump has previously expressed reluctance to deploy large numbers of ground troops, emphasising that direct land warfare would be undesirable. Current military positioning appears consistent with strategies relying primarily on aerial strikes, naval power, and potentially limited special operations forces.
Responding to questions about the reported preparations, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that all options remain under consideration regarding Iran. She noted that the president evaluates multiple viewpoints before making decisions based on national security interests. The Pentagon declined to provide further comment on operational planning.
While the United States has previously conducted military actions against Iranian targets—including last year’s “Midnight Hammer” operation, in which stealth bombers launched strikes on nuclear facilities—the current planning is reportedly more complex and extensive. Officials indicated that a sustained campaign could involve targeting Iranian state institutions and security infrastructure in addition to nuclear-related sites, though specific operational details were not disclosed.
Security analysts warn that such an operation would carry significantly higher risks compared to past engagements. Iran possesses a substantial missile arsenal capable of targeting US forces and allied installations across the Middle East, raising the likelihood of retaliatory strikes and prolonged cycles of escalation. One official acknowledged that US planners fully anticipate Iranian retaliation, potentially leading to repeated exchanges of attacks over an extended period.
Iranian authorities have repeatedly warned that any assault on their territory would trigger counterstrikes against American military bases throughout the region. The United States maintains installations in several countries, including Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, all of which could become vulnerable in the event of a wider conflict.
Trump has frequently warned that failure to reach a diplomatic agreement over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes could result in military action, describing the alternative to negotiations as potentially “very traumatic.” His recent meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu further highlighted the regional dimension of the issue, with Netanyahu emphasising that any future agreement must address Israel’s security concerns.
Meanwhile, Iran has reiterated its willingness to negotiate limitations on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief but has firmly rejected including its missile programme within the scope of talks. This disagreement remains one of the major obstacles to achieving a comprehensive deal.
Adding another layer to the debate, Iranian opposition figure Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s former shah, argued in an interview that US military intervention could accelerate political change within Iran. He claimed the current government shows signs of internal weakness and suggested that external pressure could embolden domestic opposition movements. Pahlavi, who has lived outside Iran since before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, expressed hope that increased pressure might ultimately lead to the collapse of the ruling system.
As Geneva talks approach, the situation reflects a delicate balance between diplomacy and the threat of military escalation. While negotiations offer a possible path toward de-escalation, ongoing military preparations and increasingly sharp rhetoric from multiple sides highlight the high stakes surrounding the standoff and the potential consequences for regional stability.
