Trump says US ready to hit Iran's nuclear program 'in ten minutes' after speaking with Netanyahu

Trump claimed that only “one or two sites” remained to be dealt with in Iran’s nuclear program, including Pickaxe Mountain. He said the United States had a plan and could execute it in ten minutes. The claim matters because it presented a possible strike as both limited and rapidly achievable.

The conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came after Trump reviewed military options with senior commanders. Those officials included CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and General Dan Caine. The call therefore occurred alongside practical planning, not as an isolated diplomatic exchange.

The article describes preparations but does not confirm that a strike had been ordered. US and Israeli officials were reportedly positioning forces while negotiations continued. Defense officials assessed that the White House would avoid an operation before the midterm elections unless Iran appeared ready for a surprise attack.

Iran’s nuclear program refers to its nuclear research, facilities, equipment, and production activities. The article presents it as a major dispute between Iran, the United States, and Israel. It does not specify the exact function of Pickaxe Mountain or prove that the site contains a particular nuclear installation.

Trump called Pickaxe Mountain one of “one or two sites” still needing attention. A site could become a military target if commanders believe it supports nuclear work, stores related equipment, or is difficult to reach. Those reasons are general military logic, not details established about this specific location in the article.

The dispute also extends beyond nuclear facilities. Defense officials said Iran would not accept an agreement requiring it to abandon its nuclear program completely. They also said Tehran would not agree to stop producing ballistic missiles. This combination keeps both diplomatic and military pressure in place.

The article describes a broad regional buildup rather than a single movement. The Pentagon reinforced air defenses, ammunition, and other military equipment. It also repositioned forces from bases that could face Iranian retaliation. These steps suggest preparation for protection, rapid response, or possible offensive operations.

Last week, ten US Air Force transport aircraft arrived at Israeli air bases in the south. They came from Fort Bliss in Texas and were reportedly likely carrying air-defense systems. Other aircraft landed in Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. The United States had also transferred another Patriot system to the region.

The posture included naval and troop movements as well. An additional US aircraft carrier was reportedly expected to join forces already in the region, alongside another Marine unit. Israel also conducted a practice flight by dozens of fighter jets toward the Iranian border. The article does not state that war was inevitable.

A new strike could produce a wider conflict rather than a brief exchange. Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ordered commanders to prepare an immediate and powerful response without geographical limits. General Ali Abdollahi also said Iran had expanded its list of possible targets and would decide when any new war ended.

The article describes defensive preparations designed partly for retaliation. Air defenses, Patriot systems, repositioned forces, an additional carrier, and a Marine unit were reportedly being prepared or moved. Iran could respond against US, Israeli, or regional assets, but the article does not specify which targets would be attacked or how successful any response would be.

The economic consequences could be significant. The article says rising fuel prices in the United States already weigh heavily on Republicans during the midterm campaign. A new war could intensify that pressure, while military escalation could disrupt negotiations and widen regional danger.

Negotiations continue because the US administration says it prefers a diplomatic agreement over a strike. Trump said Iran wanted an agreement, but he questioned whether Tehran would actually sign it. Keeping talks open offers a chance to limit the nuclear dispute without immediately risking retaliation, economic damage, or a wider war.

At the same time, military preparations give the United States and Israel options if diplomacy fails. Air defenses, ammunition, transport aircraft, naval forces, and troops were moved or reinforced. The article also says Iran may be deliberately prolonging negotiations until after the US midterm elections. That makes timing part of the pressure campaign.

Officials do not expect an agreement requiring Iran to abandon its nuclear program completely. They also doubt Tehran will stop producing ballistic missiles. The White House was reportedly unlikely to order a strike before the elections unless it detected preparations for a surprise Iranian attack.

The supplied article does not name or explain the earlier international agreement. Based on established background, that agreement was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the Iran nuclear deal. It placed limits and monitoring requirements on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions.

The United States withdrew from the deal in 2018 under President Donald Trump and reimposed sanctions. Iran later reduced compliance with several limits, according to widely documented background. This history matters because each side disputes who broke the original bargain and what should be required before a new agreement is possible.

The current article reflects that unresolved argument. US officials want restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles, while they doubt Tehran will accept those demands. Iran is described as continuing negotiations while preparing for war. The military buildup therefore functions as pressure surrounding a diplomatic dispute that began before the events described here.

Deterrence is the effort to prevent an attack by convincing an opponent that the consequences will be unacceptable. It can rely on military strength, defensive systems, alliances, or a credible promise to retaliate. The aim is to make leaders choose restraint without requiring actual combat.

In this dispute, nuclear capabilities raise the stakes because countries fear that a conflict could affect long-term strategic security. Ballistic missiles provide a way to threaten distant targets. US and Israeli cooperation can strengthen deterrence by showing shared capacity, while Iran’s warnings seek to make any attack appear costly. The article specifically describes Iran preparing a broad response.

Deterrence is not guaranteed. Military deployments may prevent attacks, but they can also look threatening and encourage preemptive action. The article shows this tension through simultaneous negotiations, force movements, and threats. Leaders must judge whether preparations preserve peace or make escalation more likely, especially before elections and amid rising fuel prices.