Trump Frustrated With Military Options Against Iran

President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with his options for confronting Iran, according to multiple sources familiar with national security matters who spoke exclusively to CBS News. Unlike previous targeted operations in Venezuela, such as the recent removal of Nicolás Maduro, any strike on Iran’s assets would likely not be a decisive blow but could instead open up an unpredictable wider confrontation that risks drawing America into a protracted conflict in the Middle East.

Axios first broke this story. Trump has dismissed reports suggesting General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is against going to war with Iran. In his own social media post, Trump refuted these claims, stating that Caine “would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.”

Trump emphasized Caine’s stance: “has not spoken of not doing Iran. He only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack.”

A senior military official from CBS News explained that while planners provide unbiased advice, White House spokespeople have referred questions regarding this matter back to Trump’s social media post.

At the core of Trump’s impatience lies his desire for a decisive action that could reset diplomatic negotiations in favor of Washington. He has pressed advisers for more robust options capable of compelling Iranian leaders to return to talks under more favorable terms, yet military planners caution such an outcome cannot be guaranteed.

Inside private meetings with General Caine, the senior military official disclosed that he advised Trump on the significant repercussions a sustained military campaign could bring, including retaliation from Tehran and its proxies against American forces and allies. This response could escalate into a drawn-out engagement requiring additional troops and resources.

Over recent weeks, the U.S. has ramped up its military posture in the region. The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group and accompanying fleet are expected to be stationed within reach of Iranian territory, joining with the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and other aircraft squadrons at bases throughout the Persian Gulf. Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems have also been reinforced to safeguard American troops and regional allies from potential retaliatory strikes.

Pentagon officials confirm these deployments are defensive in nature, aimed at deterring escalation. The scale and speed of this buildup underscore that any strike on Iran is likely to trigger a response – whether through missile attacks, maritime harassment in the Strait of Hormuz, or proxy forces operating across Iraq, Syria, and other regions.

These ongoing discussions within the White House reflect a deeper tension between political objectives and military realities. While Trump seeks a show of force for stronger leverage during negotiations, senior commanders have emphasized that wars rarely unfold as planned, even when carefully calibrated strikes can produce unpredictable outcomes.

As these contingency plans continue to be refined, it remains uncertain whether any action will result in a limited strike or remain merely a posture of deterrence. Whether the build-up leads to military engagement ultimately hinges on Tehran’s next move and how much risk Washington is willing to bear.