In brief
In a phone interview with Axios, President Trump said the United States would act against Iran but is in no hurry to decide whether to resume strikes. He criticized Iran for its financial collapse and fuel shortages, while noting pressure from Israel to use force. The administration is exploring three courses—diplomacy, renewed strikes, or continued sanctions—while the midterms could influence the direction of policy.
On Monday, President Donald Trump told Axios that he was not rushing a decision on whether the United States would resume military strikes against Iran, even though officials say the regime’s finances and fuel supplies have been severely weakened by earlier U.S. actions.
"One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline and their people are getting very tired of it," Trump said in the interview.
Trump’s remarks come as the White House weighs three distinct courses of action. According to Axios, advisers backed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe are urging the administration to maintain the current “no war, no deal” status quo, continuing maximum economic pressure while diplomatic contacts remain open. White House staffers such as Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff are pushing for a diplomatic settlement and caution that renewed hostilities may fail to improve the situation.
In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are pressuring Trump to resume military operations, arguing that Iran cannot be trusted to honor any agreement. Trump stated that oil prices are dropping “like a rock, down almost 10 U.S. dollars a barrel,” attributing the decline to expectations that a war with Iran is unlikely.
Trump added a brief comment on Truth Social that Iran “wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen.” In the same post, he noted that the U.S. had “crippled” Iran financially, underscoring the argument that the regime’s economic vulnerability might be a catalyst for a diplomatic solution.
Political analysts point to the U.S. midterm elections, scheduled for November 3, as a potential turning point. The Washington Post reported that the White House is considering a large‑scale attack on Iranian infrastructure after those elections as a way to force a resolution. Axios notes that the administration may be preparing to shift to military action if a deal proves unattainable, while remaining open to diplomatic progress.
This mixed approach reflects a broader debate among U.S. officials. Some advisers stress that maximum economic pressure, coupled with a diplomatic window, could compel Tehran to negotiate. Others argue that the political climate and international pressure, especially from Israeli allies, favor a decisive military strike to neutralize the regime’s capabilities.
As Trump and his advisers discuss options, the press speculates that the outcome will hinge not only on Iran’s willingness to negotiate but also on how the forthcoming elections influence congressional support for different strategies. No definitive timeline has been set for a potential action, and the government has yet to disclose a concrete plan.
Uncertainty remains over the exact balance of diplomacy, sanctions, and strategic strikes that will ultimately be adopted, the extent to which U.S. allies will support each option, and how domestic politics will shape the administration’s posture toward Iran.
