US Central Command (CENTCOM) said on Tuesday that its forces began striking military targets in Iran for the 11th consecutive night. CENTCOM said on X the strikes were aimed at continuing to degrade Iran's ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
President Donald Trump vowed Tuesday to strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, but experts say the deeply buried nuclear facility, potentially central to Tehran’s efforts to restore enrichment, may be far harder to disable than his warning suggests.
“The new site that they’re talking about, they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site, we’ll hit that site,” Trump told reporters Tuesday during an Oval Office meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
“Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear, we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully.”
Hours after the US president’s warning, Iran’s joint military command warned that any US attack on Iran’s nuclear or other sensitive sites would widen the regional war, according to state media.
US interests and those of countries supporting Washington would face a “powerful assault” by Iran’s armed forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters said.
Raja News, a hardline Tehran outlet, went further, calling for Iran to publish a list of vital infrastructure across the region, particularly in the United Arab Emirates, and strike the targets if the United States attacks Pickaxe Mountain.
The outlet said Iran should not wait for an attack before responding and urged officials to present a practical plan for withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Trump’s warning followed an Israeli intelligence assessment, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, that Iran moved thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges into Pickaxe Mountain last fall.
Israel shared the assessment with Washington, but the allegation has not been independently verified, and neither country has publicly disclosed the evidence supporting it.
If accurate, the reported transfer would make Pickaxe one of the most strategically important surviving sites in Iran’s nuclear program.
Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning uranium hexafluoride gas at extremely high speeds and are essential for producing nuclear fuel or weapons-grade material.
“When you assemble centrifuges like that, the next step is to put them in an enrichment plant,” David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told Iran International.
Iran began building Pickaxe Mountain after an explosion in 2020 damaged an above-ground advanced centrifuge assembly facility at Natanz in an attack widely attributed to Israel. Tehran said the underground complex would replace the damaged assembly plant.
Satellite imagery has shown years of continued construction. Albright said the underground complex appears significantly larger than would be required for centrifuge assembly alone, leading his institute to assess that it could eventually also house a uranium-enrichment plant.
If centrifuges are being stored there, experts say the facility could provide Tehran with a pathway to restore uranium enrichment despite months of US and Israeli military strikes.
A difficult target
Its depth also makes Pickaxe one of Iran’s most difficult nuclear facilities to attack.
Andrea Stricker, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation Program, said the facility is estimated to sit roughly 300 to 450 feet beneath a granite mountain, potentially placing it beyond the reach of conventional US bunker-buster bombs.
“Essentially, Pickaxe is where Iran could reconstitute a nuclear weapons pathway,” Stricker told Iran International.
Rather than attempting to penetrate the mountain itself, experts say military planners could seek to disable the facility by targeting its tunnel entrances, ventilation systems and electrical infrastructure.
“You don’t look to get a bunker buster to pass through the mountain. I mean, that’s just not possible,” Albright said.
But he added that the complex was “not immune from destruction or shutting it down.”
“If they have centrifuges in there and they can’t use them, then that is a step forward to try to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons,” he said.
Stricker said another option would be to destroy access through the eastern and western tunnel entrances, preventing Iran from re-entering the complex while allowing the site to be monitored for renewed activity.
Preventing reconstitution
For Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Pickaxe represents a different phase of the military campaign.
While Washington still has conventional military targets it can strike from the air, Heinrichs said Pickaxe presents a more complex challenge because of its depth and its potential role in rebuilding Iran’s nuclear program.
If Trump concludes that airpower alone cannot prevent Iran from restoring its nuclear capabilities, Heinrichs said any use of US forces on the ground would more likely involve a limited special-operations mission than a conventional invasion.
"This would be a special operations mission on the ground," she told Eye for Iran, suggesting any such operation would likely be conducted alongside Israel to secure or remove sensitive nuclear material.
There is no public evidence that Washington is planning such an operation.
Heinrichs also suggested that the United States may have deliberately avoided striking Pickaxe so far to preserve the possibility of entering or securing the complex, although Washington has not publicly indicated that this was its reasoning.
Whether Trump ultimately orders an attack remains uncertain, and his warning may be intended partly to deter Iran from activating the facility.
But the president’s remarks, the Israeli intelligence assessment and mounting concern among nuclear experts have placed Pickaxe Mountain at the center of a broader strategic question: how to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program after months of military strikes.
Bulgaria moved Tuesday toward allowing US aerial refueling aircraft to support Middle East operations, drawing a warning from Tehran and raising the risk of the NATO member being pulled into the Iran-US conflict.
The parliamentary Defense Committee approved a government proposal permitting up to eight US tanker aircraft and 250 American military personnel to be stationed at Bezmer Air Base in southeastern Bulgaria, CNN reported.
Bulgarian President Iliana Iotova said on Tuesday hosting up to eight US KC-135 refueling aircraft and 250 military personnel at Bezmer Air Base would not make Bulgaria a party to the war in Iran.
She added that parliamentary approval was required by law and that the government was following the proper procedure.
The United States requested that the deployment run from July 24 to October 1 in support of operations in the Middle East, according to CNN. Aerial refueling tankers allow other military aircraft to remain airborne longer and operate at greater distances.
The report said that US Central Command declined to discuss the proposed deployment, adding, “For operational security reasons, we do not discuss troop movements or speculate on future force posture.”
The move builds on an established military relationship between Sofia and Washington. Under a bilateral Defense Cooperation Agreement signed in 2006, Bulgaria designated Bezmer as a facility for joint use by Bulgarian and US forces.
The agreement provides a framework for an American military presence at the base, but the scale and stated purpose of the latest deployment have brought Bulgaria closer to the confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
Iran warns Sofia against involvement
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei warned Bulgaria not to allow its territory or military facilities to be used in support of US operations targeting Iran.
Baghaei said any participation in planning or carrying out such operations would amount to complicity in what he called “the crime of aggression and war crimes.” He urged Bulgaria’s full parliament to reject the proposal.
Bulgaria’s NATO membership adds a wider security dimension. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
If Bulgaria were attacked, each NATO ally would be required to assist by taking, individually and with the other members, the action it deemed necessary. That response could include the use of armed force, but would not automatically require every ally to enter the conflict in the same way.
In the 11 days since the Islamabad memorandum of understanding expired, Iran has repeatedly attacked Persian Gulf states and other countries in the region, saying it was targeting US military bases used in operations against it.
That record, combined with the emerging diplomatic confrontation between Tehran and Sofia, raises the possibility that Bulgaria could be drawn more directly into the conflict if its territory is used to support US military operations against Iran.
Several tankers carrying Saudi crude oil reversed course on Tuesday after Tehran-backed Houthis declared a blockade on shipping through Bab el-Mandeb, raising fears that the US-Iran war could disrupt a second major energy chokepoint.
Yemen’s Houthis, who control much of northern and western Yemen and its coastline near the southern entrance to the Red Sea, declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia on Monday, potentially opening another front in the widening regional conflict.
The order targets Saudi-linked shipping rather than all vessels passing through Bab el-Mandeb. The strait has not been closed, and a US Navy-led maritime information center said Tuesday that there had been no confirmed attacks on vessels in the Red Sea over the previous 48 hours.
But the announcement was already affecting commercial shipping.
In a letter sent to shipping companies and seen by Reuters, the Houthis warned that vessels loading or discharging oil at Saudi ports could be attacked anywhere within the reach of their forces.
The group described the measure as a “blockade for blockade,” accusing Saudi Arabia of imposing land, sea and air restrictions on Yemen and targeting Houthi-controlled ports and airports, including Sanaa International Airport.
US President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the Houthis had not yet shut Bab el-Mandeb, known as the “Gate of Tears,” but warned that Washington would respond if they did.
“So far it hasn’t happened. Might happen, but we take care of things,” Trump said. “If something like that happens, we take care of it.”
Tankers alter course after Houthi threat
Two tankers that had loaded Saudi crude at the Red Sea port of Yanbu for customers in China and India reversed course Tuesday, heading north toward the Suez Canal rather than south through Bab el-Mandeb into the Indian Ocean.
The vessels, Xin Long Yang and Rodos, had both been sailing south through the Red Sea before turning around. A third tanker, New Prime, which had been heading empty toward Yanbu, also reversed course off Oman.
British maritime risk-management company Vanguard described them as the first confirmed changes to commercial tanker routes following the Houthi announcement and warned of growing disruption to Saudi crude exports and regional shipping.
No evidence has emerged that the vessels were directly threatened, but their diversions showed that shipping companies were already responding to the risk of Houthi attacks.
Saudi Arabia pledges to protect shipping
Riyadh rejected the Houthis’ accusations as false and said it would take all necessary measures to protect its vessels under international law and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Saudi-led coalition in Yemen said threats against ships passing through Bab el-Mandeb would be dealt with firmly and that measures were being implemented to safeguard commercial traffic.
Riyadh accused the Houthis of exploiting the wider regional conflict to pursue their own agenda, worsen the suffering of Yemenis and threaten regional security.
Hormuz disruption raises Red Sea stakes
With traffic through the Strait of Hormuz severely reduced by the US-Iran war, Saudi Arabia has increasingly relied on its East-West Pipeline to transport crude across the kingdom to Yanbu for export through the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia has shipped an average of more than 4.5 million barrels per day of crude and fuel from Yanbu since April, with about 70% destined for Asia, according to data cited by Reuters.
A successful Houthi effort to close Bab el-Mandeb would remove Saudi Arabia’s main alternative to Hormuz and leave much of its oil exports facing lengthy diversions.
Tankers unable to sail south from the Red Sea would have to travel north toward the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean before circling Africa to reach Asian customers. Analysts said the detour could delay some deliveries by about a month and sharply increase freight and insurance costs.
Oil prices rose more than 2% Tuesday, with Brent crude trading above $91 a barrel and US gasoline prices returning to more than $4 a gallon.
Pakistan and Qatar are pressing ahead with efforts to revive Iran-US diplomacy, but Tehran has yet to publicly endorse the initiative as fighting continues over the Strait of Hormuz and resistance to renewed negotiations grows within sections of the Iranian establishment.
The Pakistan-Qatar initiative remains one of the few active diplomatic channels between Tehran and Washington. But continued military operations and widening divisions within Iran's political establishment have cast doubt on whether the fragile understanding between the two sides can survive.
Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni traveled to Islamabad on Monday for meetings with Pakistan's civilian and military leadership, including Field Marshal Asim Munir, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Interior Minister Mohsin Raza Naqvi.
Officially, the visit focused on implementing agreements reached during President Masoud Pezeshkian's visit to Pakistan last month. Pakistani media, however, reported that Islamabad is working to preserve the memorandum of understanding (MoU) and prepare the ground for another round of indirect negotiations.
Following his meeting with Momeni, Sharif expressed concern over rising tensions in the Persian Gulf and said Pakistan would continue "to play the role of an honest mediator and facilitator between Iran and the United States."
Momeni, in turn, thanked Sharif, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Field Marshal Asim Munir for securing what he described as the "Islamabad understanding" between Tehran and Washington, underscoring that the talks extended well beyond routine bilateral relations.
Hardliners resist
The prospect of renewed diplomacy continues to divide Iran's political establishment.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, who has played a central role in Iran's negotiations with Washington, warned on Sunday that the United States continued to reinforce its military presence while claiming to seek peace.
"They have underestimated our intelligence," he wrote on X. "We have become masters at recognizing these American tricks."
"Actions must confirm their claims, not contradict them."
His remarks were interpreted by some hardline commentators as leaving the door ajar for renewed diplomacy, prompting criticism from conservatives who warned against trusting mediation efforts led by Pakistan and Qatar.
The conservative daily Kayhan argued that the current conflict presented a "golden opportunity" to break what it described as the recurring cycle of war, ceasefire and negotiations, insisting a tougher military posture would serve Iran better than another round of talks.
The IRGC-linked newspaper Javan, however, took a more nuanced position, arguing that Iran should remain prepared for both war and negotiations, provided any talks were aimed at consolidating gains achieved on the battlefield rather than restoring trust in Washington.
War clouds diplomacy
The mediation effort unfolded alongside another day of escalating military exchanges.
According to Iranian state media, Iranian forces struck US military facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan using missiles and one-way attack drones.
The IRGC claimed the attacks destroyed early-warning radars, Patriot air-defense systems and satellite communications equipment, although those claims could not be independently verified.
The IRGC also warned commercial shipping against relying on US military protection in the Strait of Hormuz. A source quoted by the IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency said traffic through the waterway had effectively stopped and warned it would remain closed as long as US military operations continued.
Meanwhile, US Central Command announced another round of strikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure used to threaten maritime shipping. Iranian media reported attacks on military sites in Bandar Abbas, Bushehr, Chabahar, Qeshm Island and other strategic coastal locations.
Defense analyst Farzin Nadimi told Iran International that despite nine days of intensive US strikes, Washington had so far failed to restore commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving difficult decisions about the next phase of the campaign.
Regional risks grow
The regional risks also continued to widen beyond the Persian Gulf.
Yemen's Houthi movement announced it had begun imposing a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia and barred Saudi oil tankers from transiting the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Analyst Shahir Shahid-Sales said the move was likely coordinated with Tehran.
"The key question is whether the Houthis can actually enforce this blockade and how serious a conflict with Saudi Arabia may become," he wrote on X. "If they begin striking oil tankers, oil prices are likely to rise even further."
A hardline Iranian lawmaker accused parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf of backing a US deal that blocks revenge for Ali Khamenei’s killing and could paralyze the state, paving the way for a bloodless coup.
Hamid Rasaei said the memorandum negotiated with Washington was fundamentally incompatible with retaliation, accusing Ghalibaf of trying to disguise that contradiction through religious and ideological rhetoric.
“Revenge is fundamentally incompatible with this memorandum,” Rasaei said in an interview with the YouTube channel Hokmran.
“As you can see, Mr. Ghalibaf is tying himself in knots, scrambling to link revenge to the reappearance of the Imam of the Age, because he has signed something that prevents you from taking revenge.”
Ghalibaf led Iran’s negotiating team in talks with the United States and has emerged as the principal defender of the Islamabad memorandum among the Islamic Republic’s senior officials.
The agreement’s first clause commits Iran and the United States to end military operations, refrain from initiating further attacks and avoid the threat or use of force against each other.
Ghalibaf said last month that just as vengeance for the third Shiite imam would be fulfilled through the reappearance of the Imam of the Age, vengeance for the slain supreme leader would be achieved through the “liberation of Jerusalem.”
He later described the liberation of Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the “final step of revenge” and said Iran could support its allies through missiles when military action was needed and through negotiations when political pressure was more effective.
By tying revenge to a distant ideological objective rather than an immediate attack on the United States or Israel, Ghalibaf appeared to be seeking a way to preserve the Islamic Republic’s rhetoric of vengeance while containing the escalation that could derail negotiations.
‘Preparing grounds for coup’
Rasaei rejected that formulation, arguing that abandoning immediate retaliation would allow threats against the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to remain in place and prevent him from appearing publicly.
“Those who want revenge removed from the equation so that it never happens—what are they really after?” he said. “They want this threat to continue hanging over your leader. They want your leader to remain unable to appear in public.”
Rasaei argued that continued threats and the leader’s absence could then be invoked to suspend the country’s governing institutions.
“They want the threat to remain in place,” he said. “As long as it does, you cannot convene parliament. They will say there is no security, so parliament should not meet, the judiciary should not function and the government should not operate—just hand everything over.”
“This would become the prelude to a coup without a single shot being fired,” he added. “This is how the groundwork is laid for a very polished coup. There must be revenge. There absolutely must be.”
The accusation reflects widening divisions among the Islamic Republic’s hardliners over whether diplomacy with Washington can be reconciled with demands to retaliate for Ali Khamenei’s death.
Ghalibaf has argued that negotiations and military power are complementary rather than contradictory, saying diplomacy can preserve gains made on the battlefield when it is backed by the ability to fight. His position resembles Washington’s argument that negotiations are most effective when supported by military pressure.
Mojtaba Khamenei, however, has doubled down on the promise of direct revenge. In a message issued after his father’s burial, he described retaliation as a “national demand” that “will most certainly be carried out.” He also warned that those responsible for the killing would lose any hope of dying peacefully in their beds.
Those remarks strengthened hardline demands for action and sharpened the contradiction between Tehran’s continuing negotiations with Washington and its leadership’s public commitment to punish those behind Khamenei’s killing.
Rasaei also attacked Iranian figures who have urged Mojtaba Khamenei to set aside revenge, referring to Fayyaz Zahed, an adviser to former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Zahed said in a recent interview that Mojtaba Khamenei should “put his personal issues aside” and forgo revenge for his father’s blood, adding that such restraint was the meaning of governance.
“Take that foul-mouthed person who spoke up last week and said Agha Mojtaba should put aside his personal animosity—even though they killed his father,” Rasaei said.
Zahed’s remarks drew a backlash from media affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards. Fars News said he had arrogantly advised Khamenei to abandon revenge and argued that the blood of those regarded by the Islamic Republic as martyrs was “not negotiable.”
Rasaei also criticized former president Mohammad Khatami’s call for an “honorable peace,” saying such proposals ultimately amounted to removing revenge from consideration.
He argued that Iran should respond not only to attacks but also to explicit threats, saying Tehran should strike before its adversaries have an opportunity to carry them out.
“A threat should be treated as an attack,” Rasaei said. “We shouldn’t wait for him to do it before responding. The moment he says it, we should strike.”
He ended by questioning whether Iran could negotiate with the same government it had pledged to punish.
“At times, we act as though revenge can somehow be reconciled with negotiations and an agreement,” he said. “But I ask you: how can you reach an agreement with someone against whom you intend to take revenge?”