Trump announces major US combat operation in Iran

Daniel Attard, a Maltese Member of the European Parliament who serves as Vice-Chair of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iran, urged European governments to move beyond statements of concern and adopt concrete political and economic measures against Tehran, he said in an interview on Eye for Iran podcast.

“Responsibility to protect is not just a slogan, it is a commitment,” Attard said. “When a regime turns on its own people, when the regime kills its own people to stay in power, sovereignty cannot be used as a shield.”

Rising tensions amid military buildup

Attard’s remarks come as tensions surrounding Iran continue to escalate, with Washington increasing its military posture in the region.

In recent weeks, US naval assets, including aircraft carrier strike groups and advanced fighter aircraft have been repositioned closer to the Middle East, a move analysts say is intended to deter further escalation while signaling readiness should diplomacy fail.

The heightened military presence coincides with ongoing diplomatic talks in Geneva and growing concern in Europe over Iran’s ballistic missile program, which US officials warn could eventually threaten both European territory and American forces abroad.

Against that backdrop, Attard argued Europe cannot remain a passive observer.

“The time for negotiation is over,” he said. “We should be decisive, we should show leadership, we should match the courage of the people of Iran — the students, the women, the youth, the elderly — who have showed great courage.”

A full-spectrum pressure strategy

Attard outlined what he described as a comprehensive pressure strategy targeting the regime politically, economically and diplomatically.

“We need to halt all trade incoming from Iran either directly or indirectly,” he said. “Iranian embassies are still operating like it was business as usual in Europe. So we need to be more decisive. No more business as usual — be it politically, be it economically, and be it diplomatically.”

The European Parliament has already pushed for the designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, a step Attard described as “very long overdue.” But he stressed that enforcement now matters as much as designation.

“We should enforce those sanctions without any possibility of any loopholes,” he said.

He added that EU member states have the authority to take further steps immediately.

“Governments can decide to close or to restrict severely the operation of Iranian diplomatic embassies within the Union. This is something which member states can actually do, and they can do it right now.”

Europe’s credibility at stake

Attard acknowledged that divisions among EU member states and competing geopolitical interests have slowed action in the past but warned that Europe’s credibility now depends on consistency.

“We cannot claim to defend human rights if we look away to what’s happening on the streets of Iran,” he said. “Our credibility demands consistency.”

He expressed confidence that pressure from lawmakers would continue to grow.

“As long as the Iranian regime thinks it can silence its people, we will echo and amplify their voices,” Attard said.

Message to Iranians and to Tehran

Addressing Iranians directly, Attard praised protesters’ resilience and framed their struggle as one rooted in universal values.

“Your courage is seen and we shall not look away,” he said. “This is a fight about universal values — human rights, dignity and equality.”

His message to Iran’s leadership was considerably shorter.

“My message is clear,” Attard said. “Your time is up.”

In a commentary published Friday, IRNA said the two sides’ clashing positions were jeopardizing the talks, laying the blame for such an outcome at Washington’s door.

It also made clear that Tehran is placing considerable hopes in Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, whose quiet mediation has been central to the negotiations.

Albusaidi now carries a “grave responsibility,” the piece argued, with his role beginning in Muscat, continuing through two rounds of talks in Geneva and now entering “another important step” when he meets US Vice President JD Vance in Washington.

Tehran’s official outlet even hinted at the mediator’s message to the American side: a warning that a war with Iran would not remain limited, that regime change is unattainable and that even heavy damage to Iranian targets would not achieve the goals emphasized by President Donald Trump, “just as they did not in the June attacks.”

Iranian media outlets have also begun outlining the main sticking points in the negotiations.

The news website Fararu reported Friday that the talks remain deadlocked over fundamental issues including enrichment levels, sanctions relief and the dismantling of parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Another major obstacle, it said, is Iran’s refusal to export enriched nuclear material, with Tehran insisting on maintaining domestic fuel production.

Axios reported that some of Trump’s advisers, including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, were disappointed with Araghchi’s proposals, arguing that they fell short of US expectations.

Trump himself signaled frustration with Tehran on Friday, telling reporters he was “not happy” with Iran but expected further talks to take place.

Asked about the possibility of using military force, the president said he hoped it would not be necessary but did not rule it out.

Speaking before leaving the White House for a trip to Texas, Trump said he still wants to reach an agreement with Iran but reiterated that Tehran “cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Fararu suggested Washington may be pursuing a dual-track strategy, combining diplomacy with the threat of limited military strikes to maintain pressure.

The negotiations, it concluded, have entered a “complex and decisive” phase: a potential framework is beginning to take shape, but deep structural disagreements and continued US military signaling are sustaining a high level of uncertainty.

In a separate interview with the website, foreign policy analyst and former Iranian diplomat Jalal Sadatian said President Trump’s tone toward Iran had recently become noticeably “sharper, more decisive and more alarming.”

Sadatian also warned that Iran’s “asymmetric capabilities” mean that even limited military action could quickly escalate in unpredictable ways.

The operative who prosecutors say tried to hire two men to kill Trump for $5,000 upfront demonstrated the plan by placing a vape pen on a napkin to signify his “target,” the hidden camera video released by the New York Post shows.

“This is the target. How will it die?” Asif Merchant said in the meeting.

Merchant, 47, a Pakistani national who entered the United States in April 2024, is accused of attempting to recruit individuals he believed were hired killers.

Prosecutors said he offered cash payments and discussed staging a protest near a campaign rally to create confusion and allow the attackers to escape.

• 

  Iranian official says Trump could face drone attack at Mar-a-Lago

Although Trump was not explicitly named in the recorded exchanges, court documents show that he – then a leading candidate – was the intended target, the Post reported.

Prosecutors allege Merchant believed Trump’s policies had harmed Muslim-majority countries and acted with backing from individuals allegedly connected to Iran.

The scheme began to unravel when a Pakistani-American acquaintance, a former US Army linguist, alerted authorities after growing suspicious of Merchant’s plans. The FBI then arranged undercover meetings that were secretly recorded.

Merchant was arrested in July 2024 at an airport while attempting to leave the United States, authorities said.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges including murder for hire and attempting to commit an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries. If convicted, he faces a potential life sentence.

In November 2024, the US Department of Justice unsealed criminal charges regarding a thwarted plot by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to assassinate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 presidential election.

• 

  Iranian clerical call to kill Trump spreads, attracts alleged fundraising

Trump has been a target for assassination threats since he ordered the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force in Iraq.

Lotfollah Dezhkam, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s representative in Fars province, said indirect negotiations do not guarantee results and warned that “if negotiations do not succeed, the next option, which is war, is on our table,” according to state media. Iran speaks “from a position of power,” he added, arguing that talks only make sense if the other side understands the consequences of conflict.

Dezhkam’s remarks were echoed by other senior religious figures, suggesting a coordinated hardening of tone from the clerical establishment.

Rasoul Falahati, Khamenei’s representative in Gilan province, said the United States fears Iran’s cyber, drone and missile capabilities and warned that any action would draw a tougher response. “If the enemy makes a mistake, we will give them a lesson harsher than the 12-day war,” he said, adding that Israel understands it would face “difficult conditions” in any confrontation.

In northern Iran, Kazem Nourmofidi, Friday prayer leader of Gorgan, dismissed US military threats as political maneuvering. “These threats are more a show of power and a political bluff than reality,” he said. “They have no choice but to negotiate with Iran.” Nourmofidi pointed to Iran’s military strength and its strategic position over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that closing the waterway could send oil prices soaring and trigger global economic disruption.

Tehran’s Friday prayer leader Ahmad Khatami reinforced the red lines on the nuclear file itself, ruling out any suspension of uranium enrichment. “The Islamic Republic has never accepted suspension of enrichment and will not accept it,” he said, rejecting what remains a central US demand.

Military echoes clerical warnings

The religious rhetoric was mirrored by the armed forces. Iran’s military spokesperson Abolfazl Shekarchi warned that in the event of conflict, “American soldiers and their equipment will be destroyed,” cautioning that any “foolish action” could ignite wider regional escalation.

Even as the tone sharpened, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said progress in talks requires the United States to avoid “miscalculation and excessive demands,” state media reported after a call with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty. Araghchi briefed him on the latest round of indirect negotiations in Geneva.

US and region brace for fallout

The clerical warnings coincided with precautionary moves by Washington. The US State Department authorized the departure of non-emergency personnel and their families from Israel, citing security concerns. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee urged embassy staff who wished to leave to do so immediately.

Hospitals across Israel began preparing contingency measures in case of war, while China advised its citizens to leave Iran while commercial routes remain open.

The simultaneous escalation in rhetoric and precautionary actions abroad showed the volatility of the moment: negotiations might continue, but Iran’s religious leadership is publicly signaling that compromise has limits – and that confrontation remains firmly within view.

A panel of security and policy analysts said the tone and structure of the administration’s messaging suggest Washington is increasingly reframing the Iran challenge around multiple justifications simultaneously, including ballistic missile threats, regional destabilization and mass killings inside Iran.

Janatan Sayeh, a research analyst focusing on Iranian affairs at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said the speech reflected three distinct pillars that historically have shaped US decisions to escalate foreign policy crises.

“If you look at all these three pillars,” he said, referring to nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles and human rights violations, “they have been historically used to explain why the United States would get involved in a foreign conflict.”

According to Sayeh, the evolving rhetoric reflects growing pessimism in Washington about the prospects for diplomacy.

From nuclear file to broader threats

For years, US policy discussions surrounding Iran largely centered on the nuclear program. But Trump’s recent remarks placed greater emphasis on Tehran’s missile capabilities, warning they could eventually threaten the US homeland as well as American bases overseas.

“They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America," said Trump during his State of Union address this week.

Shayan Samii, a former US government appointee, said the messaging appeared designed to build a political and public framework for possible escalation.

“President Trump tried to create basically a framework for what a military intervention would be and why there is a need for a military intervention,” Samii told Eye for Iran.

He added that referencing the reported killing of tens of thousands of protesters carried particular significance.

“When he validates the number 32,000, that basically is telling the world that a massacre has occurred and we need to have a collective response for it,” Sami said.

The framing, he argued, was aimed not only at Trump’s political base but also at building broader bipartisan support in Washington.

Tehran’s defiant posture

Despite increasingly forceful rhetoric from Washington, analysts said Tehran appears to be continuing escalation while dismissing the significance of US warnings.

Middle East historian and political analyst Shahram Kholdi said Islamic Republic leaders are behaving as though the shift in tone does not signal imminent action.

“They are reacting as if they have not heard anything that President Trump has said,” Kholdi said.

He described Iran’s posture as a pattern of “passive-aggressive… escalatory behavior,” arguing that the regime is rebuilding military capabilities damaged in earlier confrontations during the 12-day war in June.

“They are rebuilding everything… the ballistic missile program, air defense systems,” he said, adding that Tehran appears to view Washington as “all rhetoric and no action.”

Diplomacy meets deterrence

The day after the latest round of talks concluded Thursday, Trump signaled growing frustration with negotiations.

“I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have… We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters Friday. “No, I’m not happy with the way they’re going.”

The remarks come amid a substantial US military deployment already positioned in and around the Middle East, including carrier strike groups, advanced fighter aircraft and additional naval assets — a buildup analysts say increases pressure while diplomacy continues.

Sayeh argued that extended negotiations may serve a strategic purpose by demonstrating that diplomatic avenues have been exhausted.

“As the talks drag out… it signals to the world that the West has exhausted all diplomatic options,” he said.

The combination of military buildup, shifting rhetoric and bipartisan concern marks a notable turning point in how Iran is being discussed in Washington.

Historian and political analyst Shahram Kholdi described the US military buildup as “a world war scale force,” comparing it to the kind of power Washington brought to bear during World War II’s Operation Torch.

As negotiations continue alongside escalating military signaling, the central question remains unresolved: whether the current posture is intended to force concessions from Tehran or to prepare the ground for a more decisive action.