US-Iran war: Trump warns of fresh strikes on Tehran, says attack could come ‘tomorrow’

President Donald Trump revived the possibility of renewed US strikes against Iran after weeks of relative calm. Asked whether an attack might happen, he said, “There’s a possibility I will,” while refusing to reveal a precise plan. He added that it “may be tomorrow,” according to the article’s account of his remarks.

Trump presented two possible paths: further military action or a negotiated agreement. He said the United States had already carried out major attacks against Iranian fighter jets, ships, radar systems and other targets. He also said the campaign needed to last long enough to make Iran’s nuclear threat permanent, rather than merely delaying it.

The timing matters because Trump previously said he would decide the next course of action after the US midterm elections. His latest comments suggest military escalation remains possible, even as he says Tehran wants a deal. The article does not confirm that new strikes occurred.

For Trump to call Iran’s nuclear threat permanent, an agreement would need to create durable limits that prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. It would also need a way to verify compliance and consequences for violations. These are general features of nuclear agreements; the article itself does not list proposed terms.

Trump explained his reasoning by saying he could have used B2 bombers and left a year earlier. He argued that Iran might then have found a way to make a nuclear bomb within one and a half, or two years. His stated goal is therefore a lasting solution, rather than a temporary setback.

The current position remains unresolved. Trump says Tehran wants a deal but questions whether Iran would keep it. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian says Iran still wants to finish negotiations, while accusing Washington of disrupting them. No permanent agreement is described in the article.

Iran’s inflation is described as extremely severe, whichever figure is used. Trump claimed the rate was around 301% on Saturday morning and said Iran was “setting a record.” Reuters, citing Iran’s Statistical Centre, reported annual inflation of 73.6% in September. Both figures point to intense pressure on household purchasing power.

The sharp difference cannot be resolved from the article alone. Trump’s figure and Reuters’ figure may refer to different periods, calculations or definitions, but the article does not identify the reason. The safest conclusion is that they are not directly comparable without more methodological information.

The article adds another sign of economic stress: Iran’s rial had fallen roughly 35% against the dollar since Washington reapplied its naval blockade in July. A weaker currency can raise the local price of imports and worsen inflation. The competing figures make the scale disputed, but not the broader economic strain.

A new round of strikes or a prolonged blockade could intensify Iran’s economic crisis. Military attacks can damage transport, energy facilities, communications and other infrastructure. A blockade can restrict trade, raise shipping costs and reduce access to imports. These effects matter most to civilians because they can make food, fuel, medicine and other necessities harder to obtain.

The article already links pressure to serious economic indicators. It says the rial fell roughly 35% against the dollar after Washington reapplied its naval blockade in July. Trump claimed Iran’s inflation was around 301%, while Reuters reported 73.6% annual inflation in September. The article also says more oil is passing through the Strait of Hormuz than before the war.

The precise outcome of another attack is not stated. Based on established economic mechanisms, reduced oil exports would cut government revenue and foreign currency, while damage and shortages would increase hardship. Continued pressure could therefore worsen inflation, employment and living conditions.

Negotiations become harder when one side is threatening further attacks while also imposing economic pressure. Iran may doubt that any US promise will last, especially after military action or a blockade. Washington, meanwhile, may doubt whether Tehran would obey a future agreement. That mistrust makes compromise and verification more difficult.

The article shows this conflict directly. Trump says Iran wants a deal but asks whether Tehran would hold it. Pezeshkian says Iran’s supreme leader directed officials to “go and finish it,” but accuses Washington of breaking the rules by disrupting talks. The competing claims leave both sides presenting themselves as willing to negotiate.

Military and economic pressure can also reduce room for compromise. Leaders may face domestic pressure to resist rather than concede while their country is under attack or sanctions. The article gives no confirmed negotiating timetable. It says the next step depends on whether Tehran wants to sign a deal ending the war.

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategically important sea passage at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It connects the Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea. Because it is a major route for oil tankers, disruptions there can affect energy supplies well beyond the countries directly involved in the war.

The article says Trump claimed more oil was passing through the strait than before the war began. That makes the waterway central to his argument that Iran’s ability to disrupt oil flows has not succeeded. The article also says Washington reapplied its naval blockade in July, linking maritime pressure with Iran’s economic strain.

Oil-consuming countries can be affected if shipments slow, become more expensive or are threatened. Higher transport and energy costs can spread through economies, raising prices for fuel, electricity and goods. The article does not provide global price data, so the wider effects described here are established implications of a disruption to a major oil route.

Inflation means prices rise and money buys less. Currency depreciation makes imports more expensive, often increasing inflation further. Sanctions and blockades can restrict trade, reduce access to foreign currency and make payments harder. A country dependent on oil revenues is especially exposed because war or restrictions can reduce its main source of export income.

The article gives several connected indicators. Iran’s rial fell roughly 35% against the dollar after the US reapplied its naval blockade in July. Trump claimed inflation of about 301%, while Reuters reported 73.6% annual inflation in September. If oil exports decline, Iran may receive less foreign currency, making it harder to pay for imports and support the rial.

This creates a damaging cycle. A weaker rial raises import costs, inflation reduces household purchasing power, and lower oil income limits government support. Sanctions can deepen each pressure by restricting trade. The article does not quantify the full civilian impact, but it clearly presents inflation, currency weakness and blockade pressure together.