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.

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.

Iranians are increasingly borrowing money, delaying treatment and bargaining over medical bills as healthcare costs outpace household incomes, according to a new report by Eghtesad Online, while authorities say medicines and medical supplies are fully secured for Arbaeen, the annual pilgrimage commemorating the 40th day after the death of third Shiite imam.

The report describes a healthcare system where treatment increasingly begins not with a doctor's diagnosis but with offers to activate credit, pay in installments or use discount codes. From dental care and physiotherapy to psychotherapy, prescription drugs and online consultations, households are increasingly financing healthcare with future income.

"The issue is not just the growth of a few startups or advertisements by a few clinics; the issue is the shrinking liquidity of households, where a patient is forced to borrow from next month's income to pay for today's pain," the report said.

When treatment depends on payday

Conversations in doctors' offices, the report said, increasingly focus on affordability rather than treatment. Patients ask whether insurance will cover consultation fees or whether doctors can charge less, while physicians report seeing people who postpone laboratory tests, imaging scans and prescriptions after paying for the initial visit.

• 

  Iran’s legal drug market is being hollowed out as shortages feed illicit channels

"Is this charged at the private rate? Doesn't insurance cover it? Can't you charge a little less?" are now common questions at reception desks, according to the report, which said patients bargain "not out of habit, but out of necessity."

Long-term treatment is particularly vulnerable. Patients stop physiotherapy midway, discontinue psychotherapy after only a few sessions or ration medication so it lasts longer, turning what the report called "a shortage of cash into a shortage of treatment."

Official figures for the current Iranian year have not yet been released, but the latest available data showed healthcare accounted for 8.7% of urban household spending and 9.8% of rural household spending in 2024.

Mental health becomes a luxury

Financial pressures are especially visible in mental healthcare, where patients increasingly align appointments with payday.

100%

"Can I pay for this session at the end of the month?" is among the requests therapists now hear regularly, according to the report. Others ask, "My salary is deposited on the 10th. Can I pay for two sessions together?" or explain, "I can't come every week for now. I'll come twice a month."

The report said psychotherapy is intended to help people cope with anxiety, exhaustion and the pressures of daily life, yet "the cost of the session itself has become one of those anxieties." Social media users quoted in the report described calculating rent, loan payments, medicine and food costs before deciding whether they could afford therapy.

Dental care has become another symbol of the trend. Clinics increasingly advertise installment plans for implants, orthodontics and root canals, while online pharmacies and health platforms now offer credit for medicines and health-related products.

"Toothache does not wait for next month's paycheck," the report said, describing installment payments as both an opportunity to obtain treatment and a warning that essential healthcare costs are increasingly becoming future debt.

Officials warn of shortages

The financial pressures coincide with warnings from lawmakers about Iran's pharmaceutical sector.

Salman Es’haqi, spokesperson for parliament's Health and Treatment Committee, described medicine shortages as a "serious and critical" issue, citing sanctions, the recent war and disruptions to imports of pharmaceutical raw materials. He warned that unstable access to medicines could cost lives.

Other lawmakers have linked shortages to delays in foreign currency allocations and cash shortages affecting imports, while pharmacists have said weak oversight has allowed some medicines to be diverted from official distribution channels into the unofficial market.

Medical support for Arbaeen

Despite those concerns, officials have repeatedly emphasized that healthcare resources for Arbaeen will be fully available.

100%

Jafar Miadfar, head of Iran's Emergency Organization, said authorities had no concerns about supplying medicines and intravenous fluids for pilgrims. He said around 300,000 units of intravenous fluids had been allocated and medicine stocks positioned at six border crossings ahead of the pilgrimage.

Earlier, Iranian Red Crescent chief Pirhossein Kolivand said medicines and medical equipment had been dispatched for Arbaeen and that five hospitals in Iraq along the Najaf-Karbala route would provide care for Iranian pilgrims.