As Operation Epic Fury enters its sixth week, the United States finds itself at a critical juncture in its military campaign against Iran. Launched on February 28, 2026, in coordination with Israel, the operation initially targeted Iranian leadership, ballistic missile infrastructure, naval assets, and nuclear-related facilities following the collapse of nuclear negotiations. With Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reportedly killed in early strikes and much of Iran’s conventional military capabilities degraded, U.S. and Israeli forces have maintained air and naval superiority. However, Iran continues to launch sporadic missile and drone attacks while keeping the Strait of Hormuz partially contested or closed, disrupting global oil flows and driving up energy prices.
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have repeatedly outlined core objectives: destroying Iran’s offensive missile capabilities and production facilities, eliminating its navy and related security infrastructure, and ensuring the regime never acquires nuclear weapons. Despite significant progress, many high-value targets—particularly remaining missile stocks and hardened underground nuclear sites holding near-weapons-grade uranium—have proven difficult to fully neutralize from the air alone. Negotiations, mediated in part through Pakistan, have stalled amid mutual demands: the U.S. seeks verifiable nuclear dismantlement and proxy restraint, while Iran pushes for security guarantees and reparations.
A recent analysis highlights that the U.S. military now faces a narrowing set of options to bring the conflict to a decisive close, especially as pressure mounts to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. These pathways range from continued conventional pressure to far more extreme measures.
1. Intensified Conventional Strikes on Remaining and Civilian-Adjacent Targets
The U.S. could escalate airstrikes against surviving military sites, including islands and facilities controlling access to the Strait, such as Kharg Island. Trump has publicly threatened to target power plants, bridges, and other infrastructure if shipping lanes are not restored, describing potential actions as “Power Plant Day” and warning that Iran could be “taken out in one night.” Recent operations have already hit energy and transport targets, aiming to impose economic costs and force compliance without a broader ground commitment. Defense Secretary Hegseth has indicated that strike volumes are increasing, with even heavier barrages possible in coming days.
2. Naval and Blockade Operations to Secure the Strait
With the Strait of Hormuz—a vital chokepoint for roughly 20% of global oil—remaining a flashpoint, the U.S. Navy and Marine forces could conduct operations to clear mines, neutralize threats, and protect or seize key maritime assets. This might involve amphibious elements or special operations to reopen shipping lanes directly, reducing reliance on Iranian goodwill and mitigating the economic fallout from disrupted energy markets.
3. Limited Ground or Special Forces Raids for Nuclear Material
A more high-risk option involves deploying special operations forces or limited ground teams to access and neutralize Iran’s remaining stockpile of approximately 60% enriched uranium, much of which is stored in deeply buried facilities near sites like Isfahan. Reports suggest considerations for raids to seize, destroy, or render the material unusable on-site, addressing the nuclear breakout concern that remains a top U.S. priority. Such missions carry significant dangers, including Iranian resistance, hazards from handling toxic uranium hexafluoride (UF6), and the potential for escalation or casualties. Experts note these would be among the most perilous operations, requiring precise intelligence and specialized WMD-response units.
4. Escalation to Nuclear Options
The most controversial and widely criticized pathway now reportedly included in contingency planning is the use of nuclear weapons, potentially against Tehran or key regime targets. The 19FortyFive analysis explicitly frames this as a worst-case scenario that “should not be utilized,” citing the risk of massive civilian casualties—hundreds of thousands in a densely populated capital—and the absence of any existential threat to the U.S. homeland from Iran. While U.S. military planning routinely considers extreme contingencies, public statements from the White House have denied active preparations for nuclear strikes. Trump’s strong rhetoric, including warnings that “a whole civilisation will die” if demands are unmet, has fueled speculation, but officials emphasize conventional superiority remains the focus. Deploying nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state would shatter long-standing international norms and invite severe global repercussions, including potential reactions from Russia, China, and others.
Broader expert assessments describe the overall situation as one of “bad options.” A full-scale ground invasion or occupation of Iran is viewed as politically and logistically untenable, given the country’s size, terrain, and history of asymmetric resistance. Prolonged conflict risks further straining U.S. assets, such as bombers and carriers, while global economic pressures from the oil disruption mount. Some analysts warn that aggressive actions could paradoxically harden Iran’s resolve to pursue nuclear capabilities in the long term or spark wider proliferation risks.
As deadlines for reopening the Strait approach and backchannel talks continue, the administration appears to blend coercive strikes with diplomatic overtures. Trump has alternated between ultimatums and suggestions that a deal remains possible. The coming days could determine whether the conflict winds down through negotiation or escalates further along one of these remaining paths.
This fast-evolving situation carries profound human, strategic, and economic stakes for the region and beyond. Outcomes remain uncertain, with any resolution likely to shape Middle East security for years to come.
About The Author
