Trump likely to expand strikes on Iran rather than withdraw, ex-Pentagon official says

As Trump prepared to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, he again warned that if Tehran refused to reach a nuclear deal, the United States would "finish the job."

The question became more urgent after Iran's surprise strike on US forces in Jordan—the Islamic Republic's first preemptive attack of the war rather than a retaliatory one—prompted Trump to declare the United States would "beat the fu*king sh*t out of" Iran.

"It's not just the nuclear program," said retired Admiral Robert Harward, a former deputy commander of US Central Command, arguing that Iran must lose not only its ability to build a nuclear weapon but also its capacity to threaten the region through missiles, drones and proxy forces.

Harward, a retired US Navy SEAL who lived in Iran before the 1979 revolution, said any lasting solution would require dismantling Tehran's broader military architecture, securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and limiting its ability to project force across the Middle East.

"I think when President Trump says 'finish the job,' he does mean something beyond that," he said.

Trump has never publicly defined the phrase, leaving it open to a range of military and political interpretations. While some see it as shorthand for permanently dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, others argue it points to a broader effort to weaken Tehran's ability to threaten its neighbours and rebuild after the war.

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), argued that Iran's nuclear programme is ultimately a symptom rather than the underlying problem.

"So long as that regime is in power, we're going to continue to be under threat," he said.

Harward went further, arguing that "a change of government in Tehran has to be the ultimate end state" because only a different government could permanently redirect Iran's resources away from military confrontation and toward rebuilding the country.

Neither expert presented regime change as current US policy. Trump himself has stopped short of making that case, even as his rhetoric has grown increasingly aggressive.

Earlier this week, Trump suggested the United States could strike Iran's bridges, infrastructure and power plants while insisting he wanted to avoid harming the Iranian people.

Harward argued those comments point not simply to an expanded bombing campaign but to a strategy of economic and military isolation.

"I'd like to see them shut down the airspace. I'd like to see them shut down the borders," he said, arguing that restricting the state's ability to move goods, people and military equipment could prove as consequential as direct military strikes.

Harward also raised the possibility of limited ground operations. Distinguishing them from the large-scale invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, he described highly targeted missions to seize or destroy specific military objectives as "a very viable option."

The broadest interpretation of Trump's slogan concerns the future of the Islamic Republic itself. For now, however, his repeated promise to "finish the job" remains deliberately open-ended.

Whether it ultimately means dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, crippling its military capabilities or creating the conditions for political change may depend less on Trump's rhetoric than on how the war itself unfolds.

Iraq's Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces said at least 20 of its members were killed and 32 wounded in the strikes, which US Central Command said targeted sites used by groups it accused of carrying out more than 30 drone attacks on US forces and Saudi oil infrastructure over the previous 72 hours.

Iran's consulate general in Karbala denied reports that four IRGC members were killed in the strikes, saying they hit an unoccupied building and caused no casualties.

The operation also marked the first time Saudi Arabia publicly acknowledged taking part in US military action against Iran-backed groups, raising the prospect of a broader regional confrontation.

Iraq's presidency condemned the strikes on the paramilitaries as "an unacceptable attack" on the country's sovereignty, while the prime minister's office urged all sides to avoid escalation and convened an emergency security meeting.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi cancelled a planned meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the strikes, Reuters reported, citing three people familiar with the matter.

Trump said Washington had coordinated the operation with the Iraqi government. Baghdad did not directly address that claim but reiterated that only its own government had the authority to respond to attacks on Iraqi territory.

Iran's Foreign Ministry condemned the strikes as an attempt by the United States and Israel to widen the regional conflict. Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, one of the Iran-backed groups in Iraq, warned that US and Saudi forces would pay a "heavy price."

Iran resumes military action

The IRGC said it launched ballistic missiles at a US air base and Central Command facility in Jordan on Tuesday. CENTCOM said all the missiles were intercepted, while Jordan's military said it downed five missiles launched from Iran early Wednesday.

Trump vowed a forceful response.

"We'll be hitting them hard. They're going to get a beating," he told Fox News, while adding that indirect talks with Tehran were continuing.

At the same time, the IRGC Navy said it stopped three oil tankers after they ignored warnings and used what it described as an unsafe route through the Strait of Hormuz. It did not identify the vessels or report whether anyone was injured.

Oil prices rose more than 7%, pushing Brent crude above $90 a barrel as renewed fighting deepened concerns over already restricted shipping through Hormuz and the Red Sea.

The latest exchanges underscored the increasingly regional character of the war.

Even as Washington and Tehran kept indirect diplomatic channels open, fighting spread across Jordan, Iraq and the Strait of Hormuz, raising fresh doubts about whether diplomacy can keep pace with the military escalation.

Ukraine has struck the Caspian arms corridor before. In February, Ukrainian long-range drones hit a Russian warship and two sanctioned cargo ships, the Port Olya 2 and the Begey, both used to ferry military cargo from Iran to Russia, months after an earlier strike on the Russian port of Olya damaged a vessel carrying Iranian drone parts and ammunition.

What sets Saturday's attack apart is the flag and the casualty: Kyiv says it targeted ships moving military cargo between Iran and Russia in breach of sanctions, while Tehran says the vessel was an Iranian commercial ship, and the sailor killed aboard was the first Iranian death from Ukrainian fire.

The Kremlin called the strike an attack on Iran and accused Kyiv of trying to widen the war. Iranian officials warned it would not go unanswered.

Yet within days, both governments were publicly signaling that they wanted no further escalation.

"I stressed that our goal is to avoid unnecessary escalation," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote after speaking with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi. Ukraine's actions, he said, were "aimed solely at defending our country from Russian aggression" and "never intended to target civilian vessels or people."

Araghchi later said he had been assured the strike on the Iranian vessel was unintentional and that "Ukraine seeks no escalation."

"Iran does not seek escalation either," he wrote, while adding that "any attack on our citizens or interests is unacceptable" and that restitution should be made for the losses.

Analysts interviewed by Iran International say the exchange reinforces their assessment that the strike was less the opening of a new front between Kyiv and Tehran than a calculated signal.

Where they differ is over who was sending the message, and to whom.

A signal with different audiences

Nicole Grajewski, assistant professor at Sciences Po and author of Russia and Iran: Partners in Defiance from Syria to Ukraine, says the operation should be understood in the context of a relationship that has existed since Iran began supplying Russia with Shahed drones in 2022.

"For the Ukrainians, this has always been linked," she told Iran International. "It's always been a war that has had a thread that goes through Iran."

She said the Caspian Sea has become one of the clearest examples of how intertwined the two conflicts already are.

"The Caspian is a very clear example of it. It's probably the most blunt example about how they're connected because that's a conduit for both what Iran receives and also what it provided to Russia."

Grajewski is not convinced the strike reflected coordination with Washington. Instead, she believes it may have involved coordination between Ukraine and Israel while advancing Kyiv's own strategic objectives.

She argues the Trump administration has reasons to avoid tying the Ukraine war and the conflict involving Iran even more closely together. For Kyiv, however, demonstrating that it can reach the Caspian and disrupt an increasingly important corridor linking Russia and Iran serves its own strategic interests.

"It's messaging," Grajewski said. "But that's also showing their capabilities or their ability to disrupt things as well."

The military relationship between Tehran and Moscow helps explain Kyiv's thinking.

Iran became an active participant in Russia's war against Ukraine in the summer of 2022 when it began supplying Shahed drones that were later used extensively against Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure.

The United States has also accused Tehran of supplying Russia with short-range ballistic missiles, while Ukraine alleges Iranian trainers helped Russian forces operate drone systems.

In her new book, Grajewski writes that Russian drone operators traveled to Iran in August 2022, where they participated in an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-hosted drone competition that also served as cover for training on Iranian drones later deployed in Ukraine.

"The Ukrainians have been suffering at the hands of Iranian technology for years. Now they're giving the Iranians a taste of their own medicine," said David Patrikarakos, special correspondent for the Daily Mail, who has reported extensively from the front lines in Ukraine and has personally witnessed Shahed drone attacks.

Patrikarakos said the growing overlap reflects a broader convergence of conflicts rather than the emergence of one single war.

"I think they're still separate wars," he said. "But I'd say there's a greater overlap."

Ukraine's experience defending against Iranian-designed drones has also reshaped its own military capabilities. Kyiv developed counter-drone technologies during the war and has since exported low-cost anti-drone systems to Persian Gulf countries facing attacks from Iranian drones.

Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, agrees the strike was primarily about sending a signal but believes the intended audience may have extended beyond Tehran.

"The question isn't just what Ukraine is trying to do here. Why did the United States use Ukraine to make this point?" he said.

Vatanka, in his view, said the operation may have been intended to pressure Iran to reconsider its military cooperation with Russia while also warning Tehran that northern trade routes may be no safer than its increasingly constrained southern routes.

"The two motives there: one is for Iran to weaken its association with Russia when it comes to the Ukraine war," he said.

"The other is to raise awareness in Iran that if it's looking for alternative trade routes around the blockade, its north isn't necessarily secure either."

For months, the United States and its allies have targeted Iranian military infrastructure, ports, naval assets and logistics networks along the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to constrain Tehran's ability to move military equipment and conduct maritime trade.

As pressure has mounted on Iran's southern access to international shipping, northern routes across the Caspian Sea have taken on greater importance, particularly the International North-South Transport Corridor linking Iran with Russia. If Vatanka's assessment is correct, the strike signaled that those routes may also be vulnerable.

Neither Grajewski nor Vatanka expects the Caspian strike to trigger a direct military confrontation between Iran and Ukraine.

"They are very careful how they horizontally escalate," Vatanka said.

Whether that message came from Kyiv alone, or with the backing of others, remains open to debate. What appears far less disputed is that neither Ukraine nor Iran has much interest in allowing that signal to become a wider war.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told Iranian state television Tuesday Oman had proposed a 50-50 arrangement under which the inbound route would be on one country’s side and the outbound route on the other’s.

Tehran rejected that formula, he said, because it would not adequately address Iran’s national security concerns.

Instead, Gharibabadi said Tehran proposed placing one shipping lane entirely within Iranian territorial waters and part of the other within Iranian waters, citing national security concerns.

“Our proposal is for one route to lie entirely within the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with part of the other route also passing through Iranian territorial waters, so that Iran can effectively exercise oversight over both inbound and outbound traffic.”

Reuters reported Tuesday that Oman had proposed a joint regional mechanism to manage shipping through the strategic waterway and collect voluntary fees.

The proposal has regional backing and would prevent Iran from exercising sole control over the strait, the report said citing a source from a Persian Gulf country.

The future of shipping through Hormuz was also part of Iran’s wider regional discussions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that he had held separate phone calls with his Omani and Saudi counterparts the previous evening.

He said the conversations covered regional developments, diplomatic efforts to restore stability and insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz.

Parallel US-Iran contacts

The negotiations over Hormuz were unfolding alongside contacts between Tehran and Washington over the broader conflict.

Gharibabadi said Iran had not requested negotiations with Washington over the past 15 days, adding that it was the United States that sought talks and conveyed through Oman that it would not carry out military action against Iran.

Trump, however, said Tuesday that Washington was holding “good talks” with Iran and had a chance of reaching an agreement. He added that the United States held a “very strong position” with Tehran and that he would prefer to avoid attacks on Iranian power plants and bridges.

Trump later hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where the two leaders agreed that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, an Israeli source familiar with the talks told Iran International.

The source described the meeting as a “major moment of coordination,” saying Washington and Jerusalem agreed on their objective but could differ over how to achieve it.

The diplomatic activity unfolded as more than 20 US Navy warships operated across the Middle East in support of military missions, including enforcement of what the US military called a “steel wall blockade” against Iran.

CENTCOM said Tuesday in a post on X that, as of July 28, it had redirected 18 commercial vessels, disabled two and boarded two while enforcing the blockade.

One sailor was killed and three others wounded when the vessel was struck on Saturday near Russia’s Astrakhan port in the Volga Delta.

While Iranian officials condemned the strike as an act of aggression and vowed it “will not go unanswered,” commentators remain divided over how Tehran should respond and whether opening a new front would strengthen or further strain Iran’s position.

Conservative newspapers portrayed the attack as part of a coordinated Western and Israeli effort to widen the conflict and divert Iran’s attention from the Strait of Hormuz.

The hardline daily Kayhan described the strike as a “strategic warning,” arguing that its purpose was to draw Iran into a new northern front.

“It is not impossible that Ukraine’s serious entry into this arena could ignite another world war, because all the signs of a global war are visible,” the newspaper warned.

Farhikhtegan argued that Zelensky would not have authorized the operation without European backing.

“Tehran knows Kyiv is not the principal actor but Europe’s and NATO’s proxy for testing the battlefield,” the conservative newspaper wrote, adding that the attack could not have taken place without Washington’s knowledge.

Military analyst Nima Akbarkhani went further, arguing that Tehran should retaliate against Ukraine’s European supporters rather than Kyiv itself.

“The strategic and precise response is to target European interests, not an emotional action,” he told state broadcaster IRIB. “The only people who can restrain Zelensky are those financing his war.”

Tehran-based journalist Afifeh Abedi also called for a “proportionate response,” describing the strike as an attempt to expand both the geography and nature of the Russia-Ukraine war.

She suggested Ukraine may be acting under Israeli pressure to bring European and US positions closer together and “merge the two wars” against Iran and Russia.

“Ukraine’s action against Iran was entirely deliberate and intended to raise tensions,” she told ISNA.

Warnings against a new northern front

Other Iranian commentators warned that retaliation could bring far greater risks than benefits.

Conservative political activist Ali Gholhaki, who is close to Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, cautioned that direct action against Ukraine could mobilize European governments alongside the United States.

“Iran must ensure that any response to Ukraine does not mobilize all of Europe alongside America against Iran,” he said.

Former diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi warned that the emergence of a northern front could force Iran to redeploy military assets toward the Caspian region, creating new vulnerabilities elsewhere.

He also questioned how the United States, Europe, Turkey and Russia would react if Iran attacked targets in the Black Sea region or inside Ukraine.

Military analyst Mohsen Reyhani highlighted the practical obstacles facing Tehran. In a post on X, he said drone strikes on Odesa from the Caspian would require Russian cooperation, while missiles launched from northwestern Iran could have to cross Turkish airspace, risking NATO involvement.

He said strikes on cities such as Kyiv would require missiles with ranges of about 1,700 to 2,500 kilometers.

Political analyst Maziar Aghazadeh argued that missile or drone attacks on Ukraine would offer little deterrent value while exposing Iran to a prolonged conflict.

Such retaliation, he wrote in Asr-e Iran, could open “a futile and exhausting new front” in which Iran would bear far greater costs than Ukraine.

Diplomats try to de-escalate

The Iranian and Ukrainian foreign ministers spoke on Tuesday in an effort to contain tensions. Abbas Araghchi said Andrii Sybiha had assured him the strike was unintentional and that Kyiv did not seek escalation.

Araghchi said Iran also sought to avoid escalation but demanded restitution for the loss of life and damage.

Sybiha said in a post on X that Ukraine had not intended to target civilians or civilian vessels and urged Tehran to refrain from escalating and end its support for Russia’s war.

Hostile ties shaped by the Russia war

Relations between Tehran and Kyiv were already deeply strained before the ship attack.

The Revolutionary Guards’ downing of a Ukrainian passenger jet over Tehran in 2020 caused a lasting rupture. Tensions later deepened over Iran’s transfer of Shahed drones and production technology to Russia.

Kyiv considers Tehran a direct contributor to Moscow’s war effort. Zelensky has argued that Iran effectively entered the conflict by supplying drones, transferring technology and enabling their production inside Russia.

Tehran denies being a formal military ally of Moscow, although Iranian officials have acknowledged earlier drone transfers and technology cooperation. The two countries’ comprehensive strategic partnership, signed in January 2025, does not include a mutual defense clause.

The relationship deteriorated further after Ukraine offered to help counter Iranian drones during Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States, reinforcing Tehran’s perception that Kyiv had aligned itself with Iran’s regional adversaries.

Russia, meanwhile, strongly backed Tehran after the ship strike.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the incident demonstrated “the clear threat Ukraine poses to the regional security of Caspian littoral states,” while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said an attack on the Iranian vessel was “like an attack on Iran itself.”

The debate in Tehran now centers less on whether the attack requires a response than on what form that response could take without pulling Iran into an expanding conflict stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea.