US Plans Phased Military Campaign Against Iran if Nuclear Talks Collapse

If negotiations with Iran collapse, the United States would likely move fast to degrade Tehran's military capabilities. Analysts expect the campaign to start with missile systems, naval assets and command networks before moving to more controversial targets.

Negotiators continue work on a preliminary framework agreement, which officials call a one-page starting point for broader talks on Iran's nuclear program and potential sanctions relief. Deep mistrust on both sides keeps the process fragile and raises the stakes if diplomacy fails.

"We’re not starting at zero," retired Army Lt. Col. Seth Krummrich, a former Joint Staff planner and current global risk analyst, told Fox News Digital. "We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward."

That tension showed Thursday when a senior U.S. official confirmed American forces struck Iran's Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas, key locations near the Strait of Hormuz. The official insisted the operation did not restart the war or end the ceasefire.

The strike on one of Iran's oil ports followed Iran's launch of 15 ballistic and cruise missiles at the UAE's Fujairah Port two days earlier. The attack drew anger from Gulf allies. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine said earlier this week that it did not break the ceasefire and amounted to a low-level strike.

President Donald Trump has warned repeatedly that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. could resume bombing Iran. Before the recent ceasefire, he signaled Washington might target the country's energy infrastructure and key economic assets. Any escalation would likely proceed in phases, starting with efforts to dismantle Iran's ability to project force across the region.

If talks break down, renewed conflict would turn into a contest for escalation control, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula said. Iran would seek to impose costs without provoking regime-threatening retaliation, while the U.S. strips away Tehran's remaining leverage.

"The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities," he said, referring to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate," he added.

"President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon," White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital. The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment.

One early focus could be Iran's fleet of fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz, a central part of Tehran's ability to threaten global shipping in a critical energy corridor.

RP Newman, a military and terrorism analyst and Marine Corps veteran, said leaving much of that fleet intact during earlier strikes was a mistake. "We’ve blown up six of them," he said. "They’ve got about 400 left."

The small, fast-moving boats form a key part of Iran’s asymmetric maritime strategy. They can harass commercial tankers and U.S. naval forces and would quickly become a priority target in any renewed campaign.

Much of Iran’s core military structure remains intact. Newman said the U.S. has killed less than one percent of IRGC troops, leaving a large portion able to carry out operations. He estimated the group numbers between 150,000 and 190,000.

Targeting the IRGC proves far more complex than eliminating senior leadership. "They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away," Krummrich said. "Over 47 years it’s percolated down to every level."

Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies policy institute, said Washington may tighten economic pressure before broadening military action. He argued the U.S. should squeeze Iran for at least another three to six weeks before more aggressive escalation.

"You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens," Krummrich said of Iran’s primary oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf. "But what the planner said was, no — what we can do is a maritime blockade. It will have the same effect."

Iran keeps moving crude through covert shipping networks and ship-to-ship transfers. Tanker trackers report millions of barrels still reaching markets in recent weeks.

A CIA analysis found Iran may sustain those pressures for another three to four months before facing more severe economic strain, according to a report by The Washington Post.

Trump has signaled willingness to go further. Before the ceasefire, he warned the U.S. could completely obliterate Iran’s electric generating plants, oil infrastructure and key export hubs such as Kharg Island if no deal comes.

"You don’t do that at first," Montgomery said of strikes on dual-use infrastructure, calling them a conditional step based on Iran’s response.

Such targets present legal and operational challenges. "I've got 500 people standing on my target. You can't hit that," Newman said.

Decisions carry political and legal risks amid international scrutiny. Broader strikes could create long-term instability if they push Iran toward internal collapse.

"In the short term, it might help. But in the long term, we’re all going to have to deal with it," Krummrich said. "Once you pull that lever, you're basically pushing Iran closer to the edge of the abyss."

A collapse of state authority could lead to a failed-state scenario across the Strait of Hormuz, with armed groups, drones and missiles operating unchecked in a key waterway.

Even seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium would prove extremely difficult. "That's much harder than it sounds," Montgomery said.

Such a mission would take months and require engineers, technicians, heavy excavation equipment and thousands of U.S. operators with continuous air coverage. "When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk," Krummrich said.