AXIOS: Trump ‘Close’ To Decision On ‘Massive Attack’ On Iran
President Donald Trump is considering a major expansion of American military operations against Iran as Tehran continues threatening commercial shipping, supporting regional proxy attacks, and resisting U.S.-backed diplomatic proposals.
In an exclusive interview Thursday, Trump told Axios that he is “seriously considering” restarting large-scale combat operations against the Iranian regime. The president said the potential offensive would exceed the size and intensity of Operation Epic Fury, the campaign launched earlier this year to dismantle Iran’s military capabilities and prevent the regime from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Trump emphasized that no final decision had been reached. Two American officials similarly confirmed that the president had not yet authorized a new operation or issued fresh military orders.
“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” the president said.
The statement makes clear that the United States has prepared military options while leaving Trump room to determine whether additional force is necessary.
Trump said Israel “would join in two minutes if I ask them to,” but maintained that “we don’t need anybody” to conduct another operation against Iran.
He also warned that there would be “consequences” for Israel if it participated—an apparent acknowledgment that Tehran would almost certainly retaliate against the Jewish state.
The president’s comments follow the collapse of the diplomatic framework intended to end the conflict.
Trump had previously described the ceasefire as “on life support.” That comment came in May after Iran submitted a response to an American peace proposal that the president considered unacceptable. A broader memorandum of understanding was subsequently reached in June, establishing a temporary framework for ending hostilities, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and negotiating a longer-term nuclear agreement.
That arrangement deteriorated rapidly.
On July 8, Trump declared the interim accord “over” after Iran attacked commercial vessels and negotiations failed to produce meaningful progress. American forces then resumed strikes against Iranian military targets.
The United States has since conducted repeated rounds of airstrikes in response to Iranian attacks on shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command confirmed that its latest operations represented the 12th consecutive day of strikes against Iranian targets.
Trump said the Iranians “want to negotiate” but are not yet prepared to accept an agreement meeting American security demands.
“They haven’t received enough pain yet,” he said.
Regional mediators have continued attempting to restart negotiations, but Iranian leaders have not accepted the latest proposal placed before them.
“We are trying, but the Iranians are not being helpful,” one regional source familiar with the mediation effort said.
The regime’s refusal to compromise comes despite substantial military and economic pressure. Iran has continued challenging freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important oil-shipping routes in the world, while American forces have targeted missile, drone, radar, and other military facilities connected to attacks on commercial vessels.
Houthi Attacks Open a Second Maritime Front
The crisis expanded further Thursday when Iran-backed Houthi terrorists attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea.
The Houthis claimed responsibility for missile and drone attacks against the Encelia and the Layla, saying the strikes were part of a blockade targeting Saudi-linked shipping. No casualties were reported, but the attacks threatened to disrupt another crucial maritime route alongside the Strait of Hormuz.
The attacks helped push Brent crude above $100 per barrel, raising fears that an expanding regional war could drive up gasoline prices, transportation costs, and inflation for American families.
Trump warned Tehran that the United States would treat further Houthi aggression as Iranian aggression.
Writing on Truth Social, the president said that if the Houthis again attack vessels in the Red Sea, “the U.S. will hold Iran responsible.”
Trump identified the Houthis as a proxy force armed and supported by Tehran and warned that “major military punishment will be inflicted upon Iran and, of course, the Houthis themselves.”
The warning reflects a broader America First doctrine of holding hostile regimes accountable for attacks carried out through terrorist proxies. Iran has spent years supplying weapons, training, and financial support to organizations that threaten American troops, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and international shipping while attempting to avoid direct responsibility.
Trump’s message removes that shield of plausible deniability. Tehran cannot finance and equip terrorist organizations and then claim innocence when those organizations attack American interests or destabilize global commerce.
House Votes to Restrict Trump’s Military Authority
As Trump considered escalating the campaign, the Republican-controlled House narrowly approved a resolution directing the president to remove American forces from unauthorized hostilities against Iran.
The House passed H. Con. Res. 89 by a vote of 214-208 on Thursday morning. Four Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan, and Warren Davidson of Ohio—joined Democrats in supporting the measure. Nine members did not vote.
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington introduced the resolution, arguing that Congress had not authorized the continuing conflict.
The House action represented another bipartisan warning over the length, cost, and potential expansion of the war. It was also the second time the chamber had approved a measure attempting to curtail Trump’s Iran operations following the collapse of the ceasefire.
However, the resolution is largely symbolic.
Because it is a concurrent resolution, it is not presented to the president for his signature or veto and does not carry the same legal force as enacted legislation. The Trump administration has also disputed Congress’ ability to compel the withdrawal of troops through that mechanism.
Supporters maintain that Congress possesses the constitutional authority to declare war and should approve any prolonged military campaign. The administration argues that the president has independent authority as commander in chief to defend American forces, retaliate against attacks, and protect international shipping without waiting for Congress to pass a separate authorization after every hostile act.
The constitutional debate is legitimate. But the practical stakes are equally important: Iran has attacked American personnel and commercial vessels, threatened vital shipping routes, and used terrorist proxies to widen the conflict.
Restricting the president’s ability to respond could signal weakness to a regime that has repeatedly treated restraint as an opportunity to regroup and escalate.
Senate Rejects Similar War-Powers Measure
A parallel effort failed in the Senate later Thursday.
Senators voted 47-49 against discharging S.J. Res. 180 from the Foreign Relations Committee, preventing the Iran war-powers measure from advancing.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine joined Democrats in supporting the resolution. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania sided with Republicans in opposing it. Republican Sens. Katie Britt, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul did not vote.
Fetterman’s vote reflected his continued willingness to break with Democratic leaders on Iran and Israel. While many members of his party have demanded that Trump end military operations, Fetterman has consistently supported confronting Tehran and preventing the regime from threatening Israel or obtaining nuclear weapons.
The Senate’s rejection means Congress has not produced a unified measure demanding an end to the campaign.
The House may have passed its resolution, but without Senate approval—and without legislation carrying the force of law—the Trump administration retains operational control over the military response.
Trump Faces a Defining Decision
The president must now decide whether sustained limited strikes are sufficient or whether Iran’s continued defiance requires a broader campaign.
A massive new attack could destroy more of Tehran’s missile infrastructure, naval capabilities, military leadership, and support networks. It could also trigger wider retaliation against American bases, Israel, Gulf allies, and global shipping.
Trump acknowledged those risks while making clear that the United States is fully prepared to act.
Iran’s leaders have been offered an opportunity to negotiate. Instead, they have continued attacking ships, challenging American forces, and encouraging proxy violence across the region.
The central question is whether Tehran can be compelled to abandon that strategy without another overwhelming demonstration of American power.
Trump has not yet made his final decision. But his warning leaves Iran with little room for misunderstanding: Diplomacy remains available, but patience is running out.