Iran warns new war with US could last longer as Trump threatens ‘the hammer’

Iran uses “renewed war” to describe a possible return to direct combat after diplomatic efforts pause or fail. The warning matters because both the United States and Israel have threatened to resume bombardments, while Iran says a future conflict could last longer and escape Washington’s control.

The previous fighting began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks across the region. Iran-aligned armed groups also joined the conflict in Lebanon and Yemen, widening the battlefield beyond Iranian territory.

The immediate danger is another escalation. Donald Trump said the United States still had one or two targets to strike and could act quickly. Iranian officials answered with warnings that any new conflict would have no geographical limits. At the same time, negotiations remain possible through a letter from J.D. Vance and diplomatic contacts.

Pickaxe Mountain is identified in the article as a suspected underground nuclear complex in Iran. The article does not provide technical details about its location, construction, or exact activities. Trump named it while saying the United States still had one or two sites to “take care of.”

An underground nuclear facility could become a military target because suspected nuclear infrastructure may be connected to capabilities that an attacker wants to disable. Underground construction can also make a site harder to reach, increasing its perceived military importance. These are general strategic reasons; the article does not confirm what Pickaxe Mountain contains.

Trump said the United States could strike the remaining targets in about 10 minutes. His comments raised fears that diplomacy could be overtaken by another attack. Iran responded that a future war could last longer than the previous conflict and that Washington would not control its timing or ending.

The conflict’s potential scale comes from the number of actors and locations already connected to it. The United States and Israel attacked Iran, while Tehran responded across the region. This creates several possible fronts and raises the risk that a new attack would trigger wider retaliation.

The previous round shows how expansion could work. Iran used missiles and drones across the region, and Iran-aligned armed groups joined the fighting in Lebanon and Yemen. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also warned that a conflict with America would have no geographical limits and that a broad theatre had been defined.

The article does not establish that every regional country would enter the war. It does show that nearby governments are preparing for consequences. The United Arab Emirates hopes diplomacy succeeds but is “braced for the worst.” Continued threats by Washington and Israel could therefore produce a wider regional crisis.

If fighting resumes, civilians could face renewed bombardments and attacks across several countries. The earlier conflict involved US-Israeli strikes, Iranian missiles and drones, and armed groups in Lebanon and Yemen. A wider war would make more places vulnerable to violence, though the article does not quantify civilian casualties.

Shipping could also come under pressure. Iran has claimed control over the Strait of Hormuz and targeted vessels trying to cross without its authorisation. The United States has imposed a naval counter-blockade on Iranian ports. These actions create risks for ships and for governments trying to keep trade routes open.

Energy supplies could be disrupted because Hormuz is a vital global energy conduit. The article does not give production or price estimates, but disruption there could affect energy movement and the wider economy. The UAE’s warning that it is preparing for the worst reflects concern about another regional escalation.

The Strait of Hormuz matters because the article describes it as a vital global energy conduit. Ships use it to move energy through the region, so control over passage gives governments significant leverage. Any confrontation there can quickly become an international concern.

Iran has claimed control of the strait since the war began and has repeatedly targeted vessels attempting to cross without its authorisation. Tehran has also linked the waterway to diplomacy, saying it would not reopen the strait unless its conditions were met. The United States responded with a naval counter-blockade on Iranian ports.

The article does not provide figures for possible losses or price increases. However, restricted passage could delay or block energy shipments and increase pressure on importing countries. It could also intensify military encounters at sea, making negotiations harder and raising the stakes of any renewed attack.

The main alternative to renewed military action is diplomacy. Iran’s foreign minister said Tehran hoped the other side would choose rationality and diplomacy. Iran also remains prepared for both defence and negotiations, while the UAE hopes current exchanges produce a breakthrough.

A possible opening came when Iran’s security chief said he received a letter from US Vice-President J.D. Vance seeking to revive talks. Iran detected a positive change in the American tone but had not answered. Tehran said earlier that it would not negotiate or reopen the Strait of Hormuz unless its conditions were met.

Those conditions include unfreezing Iranian assets abroad, ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, lifting long-standing sanctions, and ending the war on all fronts. These demands show that negotiations are tied to security, economics, and control of strategic access. Without movement on them, threats and military preparations may continue.

Countries often time negotiations and military action around political pressure, perceived threats, economic pain, and strategic leverage. The article shows all four forces operating together. US and Israeli elections are taking place as threats continue, while leaders weigh whether combat or diplomacy better serves their goals.

Trump said he might strike remaining targets quickly and later threatened to give Tehran “the hammer.” Axios reported that Benjamin Netanyahu pressed for an immediate strike after Tuesday’s US midterm elections, while Trump wanted negotiations to continue. Iran’s warnings aim to deter attack by promising a longer, wider conflict.

Sanctions, frozen assets, and the naval blockade give Washington economic and military pressure. Iran’s control claims over the Strait of Hormuz provide counter-leverage. These tools can push opponents toward talks, but they can also harden demands. The article’s current reality is an unstable balance between negotiations, deterrence, and preparations for renewed fighting.