US strikes on Iran a matter of 'when not if,' former IDF spokesman says

According to the source, the key question in current meetings is no longer whether an attack will take place, but when an appropriate operational and political window will emerge — a window that could open in the coming days or take shape over the course of several weeks.

The source emphasized that, at this stage, the logic being discussed — unlike in previous periods — is not based on “reaching a new agreement.”

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he planned to speak with Iran, even as he sent another warship to the Middle East and the Pentagon chief said the military would be ready to carry out whatever the president decided.

Iran however says it will not engage in negotiations unless President Trump stops threatening it.

The source told Iran International that recent assessments identify the primary objective as delivering a decisive blow to maximally weaken and ultimately collapse Iran’s governing structure; a scenario that, in his words, is not comparable in scale or intensity to anything Iran has experienced so far.

The source said the operation under discussion would be “unprecedented,” stressing: “This time, we will be facing an attack the likes of which have not been seen before.”

According to the source, joint US-Israeli discussions have also concluded that current conditions for action differ from the past.

He said decision-makers believe the present situation has created a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” and that, as a result, willingness to accept risk — compared with the 12-day war — has increased markedly.

The source said that during the 12-day war last June, both Washington and Tel Aviv avoided taking greater risks, but the prevailing view now is that the current moment must be seized.

In June, Israel launched a surprise military offensive against Iran, followed by US strikes on June 22 targeting key nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow.

The attacks were launched when Iran failed to reach an agreement with the United States within a 60-day deadline set by Trump.

The US president said on Friday that he had directly communicated a deadline to Iran for reaching a deal, but offered no further details.

'Israel on full alert'

The source also said Israel’s role could alter the scope of the scenario ahead. According to him, if Israel becomes directly involved — something he said has been planned for — the scale of the operation would expand, and in that case, the 12-day war would appear “very small” compared with the plans currently on the table.

The source said Israel is on full alert and that one scenario under discussion involves waiting for a “spark” to trigger the next phase, such as Iran attempting to fire a first missile toward Israel, which could then be used as justification for launching a far broader and more destructive campaign.

“The decision has been made. This will happen. The only question is when.”

“We do not have any plan or programme to meet or discuss with any US officials,” Araghchi told a joint news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.

“Negotiation cannot be dictated,” he said. “If one party is threatening and setting preconditions, that is no longer a negotiation.”

“While they are threatening us, they say they want to negotiate,” Araghchi added.

Araghchi said Iran would only consider what he described as “just, fair and equitable” talks, but said the basic framework for such negotiations had not been established.

“We need to see the preconditions and the agenda first,” he said.

He warned that Iran was prepared for escalation if attacked. “We are ready for negotiations, but we are also ready for warfare,” Araghchi said. “We are even more ready than in June last year.”

He said any direct US intervention would change the situation fundamentally and could push the conflict beyond a bilateral confrontation, with wider regional consequences.

Araghchi described his talks with Fidan in Istanbul as “good and useful,” saying they covered bilateral, regional and international issues.

Fidan said Turkey was in contact with both Tehran and Washington as tensions rise, adding that he had held talks with US special envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

“Yesterday I had long talks with Steve Witkoff,” Fidan said, adding that Ankara would continue contacts with the United States and other regional actors.

Turkey opposes any new conflict in the region and views continued fighting as a driver of instability, terrorism and migration, Fidan said.

Iran’s currency plunge in late December 2025 sparked nationwide protests that quickly escalated from economic grievances into calls for an end to the Islamic Republic. The crackdown that followed was unusually violent, killing thousands under a sweeping internet blackout.

Trump’s response was neither a formal call for regime change nor an immediate move toward military conflict. Instead, it combined public threats, diplomatic suspension, and economic pressure with visible military signaling designed to raise the cost of repression while preserving strategic flexibility.

“A massive Armada is heading to Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week, describing the fleet—led by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln—as “ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

The signalling grew more explicit on Wednesday, when the US president urged Iran to “quickly ‘Come to the Table’” and negotiate a deal. He warned that “the next attack will be far worse” than last June’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites if an agreement was not reached.

The military centerpiece of Trump’s strategy is the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, restoring credible strike capacity at a moment when Iran’s leadership is consumed by internal unrest.

Escorted by multiple destroyers and carrying nearly 90 aircraft, including F-35s, the Lincoln gives Washington a flexible range of options—from limited strikes on Revolutionary Guard assets to broader operations.

Additional US combat aircraft, armored units, and air-defense systems have been repositioned across regional bases, underscoring the signaling intent. The objective appears to be readiness without commitment.

Trump’s apparent aim is to exploit Iran’s weakened position to coerce strategic concessions—not only on the nuclear and missile programs, but also on Tehran’s regional proxy activity. That pressure has been reinforced by a proposed 25 percent tariff on countries trading with Iran, announced on January 12.

Washington’s approach appears calibrated to push for negotiations while Tehran is at its most vulnerable, stopping short of an explicit commitment to military action or regime change.

The ambiguity looks deliberate—and strategic. It may work, but it is not risk-free. US credibility could erode if threats are not followed through. External pressure may also strengthen hardliners in Tehran by reinforcing narratives of foreign orchestration, potentially unifying a fractured elite.

Iran’s armed allies in the region retain some capacity to retaliate against US interests or Israel. Whether they choose to do so is unclear, but the risk of escalation into a broader conflict cannot be dismissed.

Tehran, for its part, has hardened its rhetoric, warning of an “unrestrained” and “unprecedented” response to any US military operation, while simultaneously expressing openness to what it calls “fair” negotiations.

Pressure on Iran is also building beyond Washington. On Thursday, the European Union took what its foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, described as a “decisive step” toward designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation—its strongest signal yet that patience with the Islamic Republic is wearing thin.

At the same time, Kallas cautioned that the region “doesn’t need another war,” underscoring Europe’s own balancing act between pressure and restraint.

Iran’s streets are quiet after a bloody crackdown. But the economy is in free fall, and another round of widespread protests appears increasingly likely.

The key question now is whether Trump’s gunboat diplomacy can extract strategic gains without igniting the very conflict it seeks to avoid—or whether it merely postpones a more dangerous reckoning.

Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder met senior officials at the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to US officials and other sources familiar with the discussions, as Israel shared intelligence it says could inform potential targets inside Iran, Axios reported on Thursday.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman was expected in Washington on Thursday and Friday for meetings at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, including with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, sources said.

Saudi officials have been urging de-escalation and have passed messages between Washington and Tehran in recent days, according to the same accounts.

The visits came as Reuters reported on Thursday that President Donald Trump is considering military options against Iran that range from targeted strikes on commanders and security forces blamed by Washington for a violent crackdown on protests, to broader attacks against Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure.

Trump has not made a final decision, Reuters reported, citing multiple sources, including US officials familiar with the deliberations.

Trump on Wednesday again warned Iran about possible strikes while also urging Tehran to “come to the table” on a nuclear deal, saying any future attack would be “far worse” than a June bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear sites.

He described US naval forces in the region as an “armada,” language he has used repeatedly in recent days.

Washington’s military posture has been shifting at the same time.

The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the region this week broadened Trump’s options.

Open-source tracking and public statements over the past two weeks have pointed to a wider buildup of air, sea and air-defense assets, including deployments designed to support sustained air operations and defend US forces and regional partners against retaliation.

The question of whether a second major naval force could follow has added to the sense of escalation.

A separate carrier strike group, the USS George H.W. Bush, departed Norfolk on January 13, though its destination has not been publicly confirmed.

Analysts tracking force movements have said the Bush’s movements could determine whether the United States intends to maintain one carrier in the region as a deterrent, or assemble a larger package capable of prolonged operations.

Behind the high-level diplomacy and military deployments is a rapidly deteriorating crisis inside Iran that has reshaped Washington’s calculations over the past month.

Protests erupted on December 28 after strikes and demonstrations began in Tehran’s bazaars and spread nationwide, driven initially by economic pressures and rapidly escalating into wider political demands.

Iran’s authorities responded with mass killings and arrests as well as communications restrictions, while the Trump administration warned Tehran against lethal repression.

Trump publicly threatened military action if Iran carried out large-scale executions of protesters, and in mid-January said – without providing evidence – that killings had paused.

• 

  36,500 deaths in context: How Iran’s toll compares with wars and crackdowns

• 

  Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

The situation then worsened sharply. More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history, according to documents reviewed by Iran International

Iranian authorities have not released a comprehensive breakdown of protest-related deaths. They have, however, acknowledged several thousand fatalities.

In Tehran, Iranian officials have warned the United States and regional states against military action. Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s top leadership, said on X that any US military action would be treated as an act of war and would prompt immediate retaliation, including against Israel and what he called those supporting an attack. Iranian officials have also said US bases in the region could be targeted in response.

At the same time, Iranian officials have signaled that indirect diplomacy remains possible even as they reject Washington’s terms.

Trump has not publicly laid out his terms. Past U.S. negotiating demands have included a ban on Iran enriching uranium, limits on long-range ballistic missiles and curbs on Tehran’s network of allied armed groups in the region. Iran has rejected preconditions and says it will negotiate only on equal footing.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was preparing for a potential military confrontation while also using diplomatic channels, but said Washington was not showing openness to diplomacy.

Regional reactions

Regional governments are split between fear of Iranian retaliation and concern about Iran’s internal trajectory.

Persian Gulf states that host US forces have pressed Washington against strikes, wary that they would be the first targets in any escalation, according to Reuters.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh would not allow its airspace to be used for an attack, according to state news agency SPA. Qatar, Oman and Egypt have also lobbied for restraint, Reuters reported.

Israeli officials, while sharing intelligence and planning closely with Washington, have also cautioned that air power alone is unlikely to produce political change in Iran, Reuters reported, and that any transition would depend on internal fractures and organized domestic forces.

“If you're going to topple the regime, you have to put boots on the ground,” a senior Israeli official told Reuters, adding that even if the United States killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran would "have a new leader that will replace him."

For now, US officials say the military buildup is nearing completion and Trump has not closed the door to diplomacy.

But the convergence of high-level visits, an expanded US force posture and the White House’s increasingly explicit linkage between military options and Iran’s internal crackdown has turned a once-remote contingency into an imminent choice for Washington.

Financial woes helped spark anti-government protests late last which which were crushed with deadly force, in a bloody crackdown in which security forces killed thousands.

The political uncertainty and a threat of attack by the United States has only deepened

Several economic publications, including Donya‑ye Eghtesad, the state‑run ISNA, and Tejarat News, published guidance on Tuesday advising citizens on how to protect their assets from devaluation, how to plan purchases to minimize the impact of price hikes and when to buy essential goods amid market volatility.

Reports indicate that many people are stockpiling non‑perishable items, viewing goods as safer than cash amid relentless inflation.

Those with savings, they noted, have increasingly turn to gold in any form, seeing it as a hedge against currency devaluation and a liquid asset that can be converted into cash at any time.

At the same time, households are keeping only small amounts of cash on hand, enough to cover basic needs in the event of internet outages that could disrupt ATMs and banking services.

The outlets warned that persistent inflation was fuelling panic buying of basic necessities that was distorting normal spending habits.

Economic malaise has festered as the Iranian rial currency again hit a new low this week and the internal crackdown suggests no near resolution to deep US and international sanctions along with persistent corruption and mismanagement.

US President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested Iran would face a harsh attack if it did not accede to demands by Washington over its nuclear program and military posture.Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi responded that Tehran was ready with “fingers on the trigger.”

The Shargh newspaper wrote that foreign policy news and not economic it is not economic fundamentals were driving market behavior and fears assets would devalue further.

The Economic dailies predicted that the impact on food and essential goods prices would be sharp and unavoidable.

As Donya‑ye Eghtesad observed, Iran’s economy is effectively in a state of suspended animation, with the key to stability lying in the hands of diplomats.

This prolonged uncertainty, the paper argued, is creating chronic anxiety among the public: a volatile mix of fear, despair, and anger that increasingly blames authorities deemed responsible for managing the crisis.