Trump Warns Us Will Hit Iran Extremely Hard Over Next Two To Three

Kenji Sato

-Apr 7, 2026, 1:04 AM

trump warns us will hit iran extremely hard over next two to three

Trump is promising to hit Iran 'extremely hard' and his assets in the Middle East give him options As United States troops and warships stream into the Middle East theatre of war, there is speculation about what exactly the Pentagon is planning. The arrival of the USS Tripoli, the USS Boxer en route and the commitment of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division give US President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth significant options.

"We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks," Mr Trump said in a prime-time address to the nation on April 1, local time. "We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong." In a further sign of Mr Trump's mixed messaging on the war, he also said that Operation Epic Fury was near completion after indicating in recent days that the US would leave Iran "very soon".

But some military analysts have interpreted the recent military expansion in the region as a sign the US may instead be gearing up for further escalation. That was also the belief of the Iranian parliament's speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who earlier this week described Mr Trump's statements as the enemy signalling "negotiation in public, while in secret it plots a ground attack".

US media has reported on a series of options Mr Trump might be considering in Iran, including a plan to seize nearly 1,000 pounds (about 450 kilograms) of highly enriched uranium, a small incursion on an Iranian island, or putting troops on the ground to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East Program at Washington-based think thank Defense Priorities, said it was "hard to discern a strategy" based on messaging out of the White House, but "actions speak louder than words and the US is still sending more forces" to the region. "And that suggests to me that there is still a real chance of escalation, which would get the US into a deeper mess, probably wouldn't end the war, would be costly, [and] would prolong the conflict," she said.

A strike-style mission to seize Iran's uranium stockpile could be their priority. Or the US may go for the throat of Iran's economy and take control of Kharg Island and the terminal the regime uses to sell most of its oil. Another option is that US forces could take one of the Iranian islands that sit in and near the Strait of Hormuz and form the "arch defence" that allows the regime to choke global shipping and ratchet up political and economic pressure in Washington.

Mr Trump and his war room could also decide to seize the tankers in Iran's shadow fleet as they make their way into the Gulf of Oman and out to the Arabian Sea. The US has said it is a superpower and will therefore act like one. And as its marine expedition units and amphibious ready groups move into the region, they cast an almighty shadow.

But with mixed signals from the White House, there are questions about whether this war will end in diplomacy or if this hardware and the thousands of personnel it is carrying is getting into position to escalate the conflict. The options for ground operations bring their own risks to American troops and also their own chance of reward. Mr Trump is reportedly weighing them up, while offering chaotic updates from the Oval Office and via his Truth Social account.

Military strategists and naval experts see some options as more likely than others, believe a few present too high a risk to American lives, and that at least one truly aligns with a core objective of the US campaign in Iran. But as the political players deliberate over military options, Washington watchers also warn that in war, "the enemy gets a vote". The options available to Trump The USS Tripoli is spearheading what is known as an amphibious ready group, designed to project military power from sea onto land.

The taskforce consists of other ships and more than 3,000 soldiers and sailors, including marines from one of the US's Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs). It has now arrived in theatre and will soon be joined by the USS Boxer, which is spearheading another amphibious ready group and transporting another MEU.

These two MEUs, as well as the 82nd Airborne Division, "are for minor operations of either raiding parties … or seizing small amounts of territory for small periods of time", said Jennifer Parker, a former director of operations of the Combined Maritime Forces in the US Central Command (CENTCOM). Raiding parties would conduct "raids along the coast to take out certain installations or capabilities that could be missile launchers, underground bunkers holding uncrewed surface vessels or uncrewed aerial vehicles", she said.

"What I think you can assume from this force is that it is not an invasion force,"she said. "I mean, the invasion of Iraq, the US put 250,000 troops in theatre." With the two MEUs, the potential of the 82nd Airborne Division and the additional 10,000 troops that have been discussed, it brings the total extra US personnel in the region to about 17,000, according to Ms Parker. That is on top of the 30,000 to 40,000 US troops typically based in the region at any given time.

LoadingMs Parker said the forces sent into the Middle East theatre were "about providing a range of options that the US could escalate to", including coastal raids, seizing islands, or seizing [Iranian] ships at sea. These extra troops are also only part of the picture. The United States has long been building its presence in the region — including in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait — and has cemented its strategic positions with infrastructure and military hardware.

US bases provide permanent hubs for the logistics and support infrastructure that is "always harder to get there than soldiers", according to Frank Galgano, a retired US Army lieutenant-colonel and military geography professor at Villanova University. "So the support is already there. The soldiers can come and be supported by the infrastructure we have in place in the Middle East," he said.

Dr Galgano said that the arrival of more troops was "the last piece of the puzzle" when it came to US preparation for an operation, but the form that action could take and the key target remained open questions.

Iran's 'arch defence' Mr Trump has told Europe, Gulf states and allies generally that opening the Strait of Hormuz is not a priority for the US and that those who need supplies out of the Persian Gulf should: "Go get your own oil." Opening the strait militarily — no matter who might attempt to do it — would be an incredibly complex operation, analysts warn.

If a force were to make a move on the Strait of Hormuz, it would have to contend with what's known as Iran's "arch defence chain" throughout the seaway. Any sea-based operation on the strait or on Kharg Island, much further north in the Persian Gulf, would see warships sail through a set of seven islands that form a curved line within the critical waterway.

Together they act as Tehran's "stationary and unsinkable aircraft carriers", according to researchers, and there has been speculation about whether they will feature in any ground operation or the next phase of the war. Despite Mr Trump's comments, analysts say the forces arriving in the region mean the US could stage an amphibious assault on one or some of these islands, but experts warn they would need air cover.

Three of the islands — Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb — were seized by Iranian forces in November 1971, just before the formation of the United Arab Emirates, and have been a source of tension between the two nations ever since. There are still overlapping claims to these three islands, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has forces stationed on them, allowing Iran's presence to extend across the strait.

Their strategic value lies partly in their proximity to each other, forcing large warships and tankers using the shipping lane through the Abu Musa and Tunb islands to "walk" past, researchers Enayatollah Yazdani and Ma Yanzhe wrote for the Canadian Center of Science and Education. The restricted movement of the already slow-moving vessels makes them easy targets for the IRGC. "I think Abu Musa and the Lesser and Greater Tunb islands are the key," said Carl Schuster, an analyst and former director of the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center.

"They sit astride the main shipping lane. The deepest and safest shipping lane passes between those islands, which is why the shah took them in 1971. "Now, we have the ability to take Abu Musa Island and the Tunb islands. If we take them, we can keep the strait open." The challenge, Mr Schuster said, was not taking the islands, but holding them. "Those islands are close enough for Iran to run drone attacks, small boat attacks and launch and flee missile attacks," he said.

"And the troops we'd be landing on those islands don't have an integrated air and missile defence capability. So someone's got to provide that umbrella or we're going to suffer losses." Iran uses its geography and terrain in the strait to its advantage, exploiting it to build its own defence and make missions to take the waterway militarily a high risk.

"The terrain of Iran is a major factor and could even be the decisive one in this war," said Lyle Goldstein, senior fellow in international and public affairs at Brown University. "The constricted passage, Iran's long coastline, and the dense mountains combine to make amphibious or airborne landings forbidding." He said it would allow Iranians to "continually harass" US lodgements in the vicinity, "raising the costs of war substantially".

Among military strategists, it is well known that amphibious warfare ranks as "one of the most challenging types of warfare", Dr Goldstein adds, since it requires detailed planning and effective joint operations among sea, land, and air services. Last year, IRGC navy commander Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri identified the islands in the critical passageway as a priority staging area for future attacks in the strait. "Our tactical approach dictates that we must arm and operationalise this group of islands.

We have the capability to strike enemy bases, warships, and assets in the region," he said. The elite unit is now using a vast arsenal of rocket launchers, submarines and unmanned surface vessels, along with other unconventional arms, to target and harass ships attempting to cross the waterway, and the fortified islands near its coastline strengthen that capability. About 20 ships, including tankers and cargo carriers, have been attacked in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war.

Ms Parker said an attempt on either Abu Musa, Lesser or Greater Tunb would be a "high-risk operation" with potentially a low reward. "You would be under constant attack. To get that far into the strait and conduct those amphibious assaults, you would need to fight your way through the strait," she said. Dr Goldstein agreed there was little opportunity in seizing the islands. "Iran can keep fighting and even use the vulnerability of US forces on these islands to keep attacking them and inflicting casualties," he explained.

"That is one reason that this campaign, unfortunately, could resemble the tragedy of Gallipoli — though perhaps on a smaller scale." Mr Shuster noted the Iranians were aware the US was "sensitive to casualties" and would likely try to exploit that in their favour. He said in military strategy, "the enemy always gets a vote". A strike-style mission to seize uranium Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for a nuclear bomb, has been another widely discussed target in the US media.

For years, the regime in Tehran has spent billions of dollars amassing the material and concealing it in a sophisticated tunnel network deep beneath the ground in a remote mountain range. Limiting Iran's capacity to build a nuclear weapon has been cited as a top goal of the administration, and military experts believe it remains a priority.

"I know we've heard different comments from the US administration about different objectives, but I think there has been a consistent pattern of the four [primary objectives], which is the destruction of nuclear capability as number one, ballistic missile capability, the navy, which was not particularly capable anyway … and [Iran's] proxies," Ms Parker said.

"With the nuclear capability, [the US does] need to have positive control or third-party control of that highly enriched uranium, I would say, to achieve that." She explained that a "mission to seize" the material from inside Iran would not only be a high-risk option, but very difficult to pull off. "It's unclear in the public domain where that [material] is," Ms Parker said.

A facility in the Zagros mountains, near the city of Isfahan, has been identified by intelligence officials as one possible location, as well as Natanz and Fordow, although some entrances and facilities could have been damaged or moved in a bid to thwart US and Israeli surveillance. "If the US were confident on their intelligence of where [the uranium] is, they could look to use the 82nd Airborne Forces to seize that," she said. That US combat team is trained to enter hostile environments in parachute assaults.

They can deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours and can move at night. Deployed teams would be required to identify materials and package them for transport quickly, a difficult undertaking made more complicated and risky under potential fire from Iranian forces. US negotiations with the Iranian regime on its highly enriched uranium will likely be a preferred alternative, according to Ms Parker.

"But if they can't … they may make the decision that to avoid coming back and doing this again in 12 months, it is worthwhile accepting the risk and generating a military mission that goes in and seizes it," she said. Kharg could be a 'bargaining chip' For weeks now, the Trump administration has also reportedly been discussing the seizure of a small coral outcrop that sits about 25 kilometres off the coast of Iran.

Kharg Island is deep inside the Persian Gulf and is a vital connection point between Iran's most valuable exports and its customers, with up to 90 per cent of the regime's oil trade passing through its terminal. The small island is both a financial and strategic prize to the regime's enemies, although military analysts disagree about its exact value.

In an interview published on Sunday night, Mr Trump told The Financial Times that his "preference would be to take the oil" in Iran, and said of Kharg island: "We could take it very easily." He later wrote on Truth Social that the US would "blow up" Kharg Island if Iran's leaders refused to make a deal with him to end the war.

"I think the main issue will become Karg Island … because if any industry had a more clear single point of failure, that's it for the Iranian oil industry," Dr Galgano said. "And if we decide we want to try to take it and hold it, that gives us a very important bargaining chip with them." He explained the seizure of the island could be used to either force Iran to "stop attacking ships in the strait" or "give concessions in any peace talks".

If the US administration were to target Iran's critical economic resource, Dr Galgano explained, it would be through an "amphibious assault", given earlier strikes on the island. "The idea was to clear out some of their defences, like missiles," he said. "An amphibious landing is always dangerous, but we have the capability of doing it, the MEU is strong enough to do it, especially considering the significant naval and air power we already have in the region. "So it can be taken.

And the idea would be, hopefully, we would limit the damage." Other military experts have raised doubts about a US ground operation on Kharg Island, given the complexity of the mission, the proximity to the Iranian mainland and the difficulty for the US Navy to run the "gauntlet" of the strait to bring in firepower and supplies. "I believe this would form quite a hard target," Mr Goldstein said.

"The US might have to rely on the air force or army to develop supply lines and adequate firepower; that could be very challenging." He also doubted the plausibility of using the island as a bargaining chip since it would be "very costly to maintain" a garrison in that dangerous spot over a period of years. Who has greater bargaining power?

The US has not announced a decision to send troops into Iran, but Dr Kelanic said the war has demonstrated the "military capabilities, cost and risk tolerance of each side". "This war has revealed information that has made Iran's bargaining power stronger and weakened US bargaining power," she said. "Now, if the US just stops and Israel doesn't, will Iran back down on its targeting of traffic through the strait? It's possible it still does. It's possible it doesn't.

We just don't know." The US has indicated a willingness to leave the war without resolving Iran's blockade of the strait, potentially leaving it in the hands of the regime. But if Iran were to continue its chokehold of the strait, Dr Kelanic warned its leaders risked overplaying their hand. "At some point, Gulf countries might start actually fighting Iran themselves, not just defending against Iran," she said. "So Iran doesn't have endless leeway to take this and run with it.

Trump Warns Us Will Hit Iran Extremely Hard Over Next Two To Three

People Also Asked

Trump warns US will hit Iran 'extremely hard' over next two to three ...?

Trump warns US will hit Iran 'extremely hard,' send it 'back to ... - MSN?

Trump is promising to hit Iran 'extremely hard' and his assets in the ...?

Trump threatens to hit Iran 'extremely hard' over next two to three ...?

Trump says Iran war will wrap up "very shortly" in prime-time address ...?