Trump says Iran’s missiles could soon hit America. U.S. intelligence reportedly says — not so fast.

U.S. intelligence assessments do not support President Donald Trump’s recent claim that Iran is on the verge of deploying a missile capable of striking the United States, according to three sources familiar with classified briefings.

During his State of the Union address, Trump warned that Tehran was “working on missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” framing the threat as part of his broader justification for potential military action.

But intelligence officials say there has been no new evidence to back that assertion.

Two sources told reporters that the most recent unclassified 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment remains unchanged. That report concluded Iran could potentially develop a “militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile” by 2035 — and only if it chose to pursue that capability using its satellite launch vehicle technology.

The continental United States lies more than 6,000 miles from Iran, well beyond the range of Tehran’s current short- and medium-range missile arsenal.

While Iran has advanced its missile program and demonstrated the ability to strike regional targets and U.S. bases in the Middle East, U.S. intelligence agencies have not publicly indicated that Tehran is close to fielding an operational ICBM capable of reaching North America.

The White House declined to comment on the discrepancy.

The debate comes at a sensitive moment. The United States has increased military deployments in the Middle East, and diplomatic negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are described by officials as reaching a critical phase.

Trump has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and has signaled he is prepared to use force if talks collapse. Intelligence agencies, however, have assessed that while Iran has positioned itself to potentially produce a nuclear device, it has not restarted a formal weapons program.

The gap between political rhetoric and intelligence assessments now raises a familiar question in Washington: how much of the case for escalation rests on facts — and how much on strategic messaging.

Officials quietly floating a strategy: let Israel fire first — then the U.S. follow. What’s behind the calculus?

Senior advisers to President Donald Trump would reportedly prefer Israel to launch a strike on Iran before the United States does, believing that an initial Israeli attack could bolster domestic support for subsequent American military action, according to a Politico report.

Sources familiar with private discussions say some in Trump’s inner circle think a unilateral Israeli strike — followed by Iranian retaliation — would make it politically easier for the U.S. to justify its own response. The officials were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations.

The reported strategy comes as the U.S. and Iran prepare for another round of nuclear talks in Geneva, seen as a last chance for diplomacy. Washington has amassed warships and aircraft in the Middle East to press Tehran to agree to tighter limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

While the administration is publicly emphasizing negotiation, insiders say options on the table range from limited strikes designed to pressure Iran into concessions to broader operations targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure. A joint U.S.–Israel operation remains a possibility according to the same sources.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly declined to comment on internal deliberations, saying only that “only President Trump knows what he may or may not do.”

The discussions reflect high-stakes geopolitics and political considerations ahead of possible escalation — raising questions about how U.S. policy might unfold if diplomacy collapses.

Missiles, nuclear fears, and a military build-up — is the U.S. heading toward another Middle East war?

President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address to lay out a blunt warning to Iran, arguing that Tehran’s expanding missile program and nuclear ambitions could justify U.S. military action.

“They’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” Trump told lawmakers, framing Iran not only as a regional destabilizer but as a direct threat to American soil.

While the president stopped short of announcing an attack, his remarks come amid a significant U.S. military buildup in the Middle East. More than 150 aircraft have reportedly been repositioned to bases across Europe and the region, alongside expanded naval deployments. The scale of the movement has fueled speculation that Washington is preparing for possible sustained operations if diplomacy fails.

Trump accused Iran of reviving its nuclear program, backing militant proxies and being responsible for past attacks that killed U.S. service members. He also cited Tehran’s ballistic missile development, claiming it already possesses missiles capable of striking Europe and U.S. bases overseas.

U.S. defense assessments have previously indicated that while Iran currently fields short- and medium-range missiles, it could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 if it chooses to pursue that capability. The continental United States lies more than 6,000 miles from Iran.

The president argued that Iran has not made the commitment Washington demands. “They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” Trump said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded that a diplomatic breakthrough remains possible if talks are prioritized. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is intended for civilian energy and insists on its sovereign right to enrich uranium.

Trump’s speech also highlighted Iran’s crackdown on protesters, though the casualty figures he cited were significantly higher than independent estimates.

The political backdrop is complicated. Trump rose to power promising to end “forever wars,” and public opinion remains cautious about new military entanglements. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the U.S. military should be used only when facing a direct and imminent threat.

Yet Trump struck a dual note: “As president, I will make peace wherever I can,” he said. “But I will never hesitate to confront threats to America wherever we must.”

The coming days — and the fate of nuclear negotiations — may determine which path he chooses.

West erupts with regime loyalists. East flares with ISIL attacks. Is Syria’s fragile transition already under strain?

Syria’s transitional government is confronting simultaneous security threats in the west and east, as clashes with Assad loyalists in Latakia coincide with a renewed wave of ISIL attacks in Deir Az Zor.

In the coastal countryside near Jableh, fighting erupted Tuesday between Internal Security Forces and Saraya al-Jawad, a militia reportedly loyal to former regime commander Suheil al-Hassan, once head of the feared Tiger Forces. At least four people were killed, including a member of the security forces. Authorities said a senior militia commander was among those “neutralised.”

The emergence of Saraya al-Jawad signals a shift from scattered loyalist resistance to what officials describe as a more organized insurgency in the Alawite heartland — long the base of the al-Assad family’s rule. The Interior Ministry accuses the group of orchestrating assassinations, bombings and attempts to destabilize public life.

At the same time, ISIL claimed responsibility for deadly attacks in Deir Az Zor province. A soldier was killed near Al-Mayadin, while two separate assaults on a checkpoint in Al-Sabahiyah left four security personnel dead. The resurgence has reignited fears that extremist cells are exploiting the country’s fragile transition.

Interior Minister Anas Khattab accused “remnants of the previous regime and ISIL” of attempting to undermine stability. Analysts are divided over the cause. Some suggest external actors may be activating dormant networks to weaken the new government. Others argue the violence reflects a widening security vacuum following the withdrawal of foreign forces and the reshuffling of power structures.

The vast Syrian desert — nearly 40 percent of the country’s territory — remains particularly vulnerable. Experts warn it could again become a training ground for militants unless rapid coordination with local tribes and security forces is established.

After more than a decade of war and the regime’s collapse in late 2024, Syria’s new leadership faces a stark test: can it secure a fractured nation before competing armed factions regain ground?

150+ aircraft moved. Two carriers in play. Is Washington preparing for more than just a warning shot at Iran?

The United States has rapidly expanded its military footprint near Iran, deploying more than 150 aircraft to bases across Europe and the Middle East in what analysts describe as preparations for a potential multiday air campaign.

According to satellite imagery and flight tracking data cited by The Washington Post, the buildup began after nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran ended on February 17 without a breakthrough. The scale of the deployment is reportedly among the largest seen in the region since before the 2003 Iraq war.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened military action if Iran does not agree to stricter limits on its nuclear program. Iranian officials say negotiations remain possible but caution that any agreement would take time.

Defense experts reviewing the deployments say the assets being assembled suggest planning for sustained air operations rather than a limited, one-off strike. Dana Stroul, a former Pentagon official, told the Post the current posture allows the military to execute “anything from a sustained, highly kinetic campaign to more targeted, limited strikes.”

Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that if Washington intends a weeks-long air campaign, even more assets may be required.

The US currently has more than a dozen warships in the Middle East, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, nine destroyers and three littoral combat ships. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, has arrived at Souda Bay in Crete en route to the region — a rare move that could place two US carrier strike groups within operational reach of Iran.

The last time two carriers operated simultaneously in the region was in June 2025, when the United States struck three Iranian nuclear sites during Israel’s 12-day conflict with Tehran.

For now, the Pentagon has not announced any strike decision. But the message is unmistakable: Washington is positioning itself to move quickly — and decisively — if diplomacy collapses.

Beirut is sending a quiet but urgent message: if Washington strikes Iran, Lebanon cannot afford another war.

Lebanon’s government has urged Hezbollah not to retaliate if the United States launches strikes against Iran, warning that any escalation could trigger devastating Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilian infrastructure.

Speaking in Geneva, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji said authorities had appealed directly to the Iran-backed militant group to avoid actions that could create “bad situations” for civilians. His remarks come as tensions mount over the possibility of renewed U.S. military action against Tehran.

Rajji said Lebanese officials had received indications that Israel could respond far more aggressively than in previous conflicts if Hezbollah intervenes — potentially targeting key civilian sites, including Beirut’s international airport.

During the most recent Israel-Hezbollah war in 2024, the airport remained operational despite widespread bombardment. In the 2006 conflict, however, Israeli strikes shut it down. Repeated rounds of fighting have left thousands of Lebanese civilians dead, wounded or displaced.

Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, began firing rockets into northern Israel one day after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack, drawing Lebanon into months of cross-border exchanges. That confrontation escalated into full-scale war in September 2024, when Israeli airstrikes killed much of Hezbollah’s leadership and a ground invasion further weakened the group before a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in November.

Despite the ceasefire, Israel has continued near-daily strikes in Lebanon, saying they are aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities.

Rajji said Beirut is also urging Western partners to press Israel not to strike civilian infrastructure in any future escalation. His comments follow a U.S. State Department order for nonessential personnel to leave the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, citing rising regional tensions.

Lebanon has long been a flashpoint in U.S.-Iran hostilities due to Tehran’s backing of Hezbollah, which Washington designates as a terrorist organization. For Beirut, the stakes are clear: another regional war could devastate a country already struggling with economic collapse and political instability.

From nuclear sites to top commanders — U.S. plans for Iran now reportedly include targeting individuals. The stakes just escalated.

U.S. military planning for potential strikes on Iran has entered an advanced phase, with options reportedly including targeting senior Iranian officials and even pursuing regime change, according to two U.S. officials who spoke to Reuters.

The planning reflects growing tension between Washington and Tehran as diplomatic efforts over Iran’s nuclear program struggle to gain traction. Officials said the military is preparing for the possibility of a sustained operation that could last weeks, targeting not only nuclear infrastructure but also key security facilities and individuals within Iran’s command structure.

While no final decision has been announced, President Donald Trump has publicly floated the idea of changing Iran’s government, calling it potentially “the best thing that could happen.” At the same time, he has continued to signal that diplomacy remains an option, warning that “really bad things” would follow if a deal is not reached within what he suggested could be a short timeline.

The White House and Pentagon have not officially confirmed the scope of military planning.

Targeting individual leaders would mark a significant escalation. During his first term, Trump authorized the 2020 strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

U.S. officials noted that recent Israeli operations against Iranian commanders demonstrated the tactical impact of precision strikes, though such missions require extensive intelligence and carry risks of broader civilian casualties.

Iran has warned it would retaliate decisively against U.S. forces in the region if attacked. American bases stretch across Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, placing thousands of personnel within range of Iran’s missile arsenal.

Tehran has also previously threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint through which roughly 20 percent of global oil flows — a move that could trigger severe economic disruption worldwide.

Although U.S. negotiators met Iranian officials this week and discussed “guiding principles,” both sides acknowledged significant gaps remain. Trump reiterated that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon,” framing it as central to regional peace.

With warships and aircraft now positioned across the Middle East, the question is no longer whether Washington has military options — but whether the White House will choose to use them.

As tensions rise across the Middle East, even smaller NATO members are adjusting their military footprint.

Norway is relocating some of its military personnel stationed in the Middle East, citing the deteriorating security situation in the region, the country’s armed forces confirmed Friday.

A spokesperson for Norway’s military said that some of the roughly 60 Norwegian soldiers currently deployed in the Middle East are being moved either back to Norway or repositioned within other countries in the region. The official did not specify the exact number of troops affected or the precise locations involved.

The decision comes amid escalating regional tensions, including increased military posturing by major powers and uncertainty surrounding ongoing diplomatic efforts related to Iran and broader Middle Eastern security.

Norwegian forces in the region are primarily engaged in training and advisory missions as part of international coalitions. Norway, a NATO member, has contributed personnel to multinational efforts focused on counterterrorism and regional stability.

Officials emphasized that the move is precautionary and based on ongoing assessments of risk to personnel. There was no indication that Norway plans a full withdrawal from its Middle East commitments.

The relocation reflects a broader pattern of allied forces adjusting deployments in response to heightened volatility across the region.