Three U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss military planning, said recent waves of American strikes on Iran are intended not only to pressure Tehran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz but also to remove Iranian military capabilities that would complicate any future, more complex U.S. operations.
According to those officials, the strikes have been directed at a range of targets the U.S. military considers important to neutralize before attempting larger integrated operations. The officials described the campaign as effectively widening the menu of options available to President Donald Trump, who last weekend notified Congress of a formal resumption of conflict with Iran. The conflict is now in its fifth month after a memorandum of understanding that had been intended to halt fighting and create a path to a peace agreement unraveled.
Despite what U.S. officials describe as heavy blows to Iran's military since the start of the U.S. and Israeli campaign on February 28, Tehran still retains substantial drone and missile capabilities and has continued to strike passing commercial tankers and neighboring Gulf states, the officials said.
The U.S. military has publicly characterized its latest bombardments as strikes on Iranian air defense systems, coastal radar installations, missile and drone sites, and small boats and other maritime assets. One of the anonymous U.S. officials described those actions as "shaping operations" - measures intended to degrade Iranian defenses and position U.S. forces to move more decisively if ordered to do so. "This is helping set the stage, if needed," the official said. The Pentagon did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Options under consideration
Reporting in March outlined U.S. military planning to develop options for deploying American troops to Iran's shoreline to better secure the Strait of Hormuz. At that time, officials said the Trump administration had also considered an operation to seize Kharg Island, which is a hub for 90% of Iran's oil exports. That island operation would carry significant risk because Iranian forces on the mainland could target it with missiles and drones.
President Trump has said he ordered the military to avoid striking Iran's oil facilities during prior strikes against Kharg Island, but he has not ruled out seizing the island under certain conditions. Speaking to Fox News, he said: "If we degrade them far enough and deep enough back, I would do that." He has also publicly threatened strikes against a hardened nuclear-related site known as Pickaxe Mountain, a deeply buried facility near one of Tehran's main nuclear sites.
Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine and a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that the president's public discussion of such options can cut both ways. On one hand, public assertions of possible actions can increase negotiating pressure on Iran. On the other hand, Cancian said, broadcasting potential targets and goals is "bad for the military, because we're saying where we might be going."
Tactical results, strategic questions
Domestic critics of the administration's conduct of the war with Iran, including some members of Congress, argue that while the campaign has scored tactical victories by destroying large portions of Iran's conventional military and elements of its defense industrial base, it has not won strategic concessions from Tehran. Those critics point to Tehran's continued ability to menace shipping and to exert leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that handles about a fifth of the world's crude oil output.
Even where Iran's conventional naval forces have been heavily damaged, the officials and analysts cited in this reporting say Tehran can still attack commercial vessels using systems such as drones and rockets. That capability has complicated efforts to secure maritime traffic in the Gulf and sparked debate within the administration about the appropriate next steps.
Inside the administration, a fourth U.S. official said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has advocated escalating the military operation against Iran. Observers and former officials who study defense and national security matters note a distinction between the president's public remarks and the more private deliberations likely occurring between him and his national security team.
Imran Bayoumi, a former Pentagon official now with the Atlantic Council, said recent sweeping public comments by the president appear aimed at applying pressure on Iran during negotiations and at keeping Tehran uncertain about the United States' next military moves. "I would separate the noise from the actions," Bayoumi said. "I would expect the discussions between him and his national security team are looking a bit different than what he's posting online."
The cumulative effect of the U.S. strikes, as described by the anonymous officials, is to provide the president with additional military pathways should he choose to pursue them, while also contributing to a broader debate over whether the current trajectory of the campaign will produce strategic results that alter Iran's behavior.