Trump threatens to strike 'one or two targets' still left in Iran

President Donald Trump is threatening renewed U.S. offensive action against Iran. He says the United States has already destroyed much of Iran’s military and nuclear program, but one or two targets remain. The threat matters because it could restart a war that the United States and Israel began in February.

Trump said the remaining targets could be attacked very quickly. He named Pickaxe Mountain, which he described as a suspected underground nuclear complex. He told reporters the United States could deal with it in 10 minutes. Iran’s government denied that nuclear work had taken place there.

No new strike had been ordered when Trump spoke. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Trump had not decided whether to attack again and that Washington remained open to diplomacy. Meanwhile, Iran warned that any new threat could trigger an immediate and geographically unrestricted response, raising the risk of a wider war.

Pickaxe Mountain is identified in the article as a suspected underground nuclear complex in Iran. The article does not provide its exact location, design, or confirmed activities. Iran’s government denies that nuclear work was carried out there. Trump nevertheless singled it out as one of the remaining sites the United States might attack.

An underground facility is difficult to attack because earth and rock can absorb or weaken a weapon’s impact. Deep tunnels can also hide equipment, protect entrances, and make it harder to know whether a strike destroyed the intended target. These are general features of underground sites, not details confirmed about Pickaxe Mountain.

That uncertainty matters strategically. Trump claimed the site could be dealt with quickly, while Iran disputes the basis for targeting it. Rubio said no decision on fresh strikes had been made. A strike could therefore depend on intelligence, the site’s actual purpose, and whether diplomacy prevents renewed fighting.

The United States claims it has destroyed much of Iran’s military and nuclear program. Trump said, “We’ve knocked out their nuclear program,” and claimed only one or two sites remained. His statement presents the earlier attacks as highly successful and suggests Iran’s military capabilities have been severely reduced.

Iran disputes that account. Its government denied that nuclear work was carried out at Pickaxe Mountain, one of the locations Trump mentioned. The article does not provide independent evidence measuring the damage to Iran’s military or nuclear facilities. It therefore presents the competing claims without confirming either side’s full assessment.

The disagreement matters because damage assessments influence the next decision. If Washington believes major objectives were achieved, it may delay further attacks or use pressure in negotiations. If it believes important sites remain, it may strike again. Iran’s denial also challenges the justification for attacking Pickaxe Mountain and could intensify diplomatic tensions.

Iran has threatened retaliation if the United States or Israel launches another offensive. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei ordered commanders to update their target list with all tangible and intangible assets belonging to the “American-Zionist enemy.” He said any threat required an immediate, impactful, and geographically unrestricted response.

The article identifies several possible forms of pressure. Iran could target military assets, economic interests, or other physical and nonphysical assets, although it does not name specific civilian targets. It had already restricted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and warned it might sever undersea cables there. Iranian forces also reported incidents involving ships and mines.

These threats could expand the conflict beyond the original strike sites. A response affecting shipping, energy infrastructure, military positions, or communications could involve countries and companies far from Iran. Iran’s army spokesperson said renewed fighting would engulf a much wider geographic area. The exact retaliation remained uncertain, but the stated policy was deliberately broad.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime route used by ships carrying oil and other cargo. The article says it normally carries around one-fifth of global oil consumption. That makes it important far beyond the countries directly fighting, because many energy shipments pass through the waterway.

Iran had restricted shipping through the strait during the war. It also warned that it might sever undersea cables. A ship reportedly struck a mine and caught fire, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said three oil tankers were halted after incidents or possible mine strikes. These events can delay or prevent vessels from moving safely.

When a major shipping route is blocked or threatened, buyers and markets may fear shortages. That fear can push energy prices upward, even before supplies actually disappear. The article says the blockade caused a spike in global energy prices and made the war unpopular among the U.S. public. Further disruption could increase economic and political pressure.

Mines, blockades, or attacks in the Strait of Hormuz can raise energy prices because the route carries around one-fifth of global oil consumption. It is not merely a local waterway. Disruption there can affect the supply expectations of buyers, traders, shipping companies, and governments worldwide.

The mechanism is straightforward. Mines can damage or stop ships, while a blockade can prevent tankers from delivering oil. Even threats may cause vessels to avoid the route or require greater protection. Fewer reliable shipments create concern about future supply. The article reports that a ship struck a mine and caught fire, and that three oil tankers were halted after incidents or possible mine strikes.

The article says the blockade had already caused a spike in global energy prices. Higher prices can raise transport and household costs in countries not involved in the war. They can also influence elections and public opinion. In the United States, the energy shock made the conflict unpopular before upcoming polls.

Deterrence is the effort to prevent an opponent from acting by making the expected cost of action seem too high. It usually combines a threat with the ability and willingness to carry it out. During an international crisis, leaders use public warnings to shape the other side’s calculations without immediately attacking.

The article shows this pattern on both sides. Trump said the United States could quickly strike one or two remaining sites. Khamenei warned that any threat would receive an immediate, impactful, geographically unrestricted response. Iran also ordered commanders to include American-Zionist tangible and intangible assets in its target list. Each side is signaling capability and possible consequences.

Deterrence can restrain leaders if they fear a larger war. It can also fail or produce escalation if threats are misunderstood, exaggerated, or answered to preserve credibility. Here, Rubio said Trump had not decided on fresh strikes, while diplomatic efforts continued through Qatar and Pakistan. The crisis therefore remained balanced between negotiation and renewed conflict.