Axios: Trump Gets Closer to 'Massive Attack' on Iran

Trump's later interview with Axios' Barak Ravid will raise the same questions, but Trump sounds as though the Iranian war has turned a corner in his mind. Trump rejected the idea of reopening talks with Iran, even indirectly, while mulling over attacks that would dwarf even those in the first phase of Operation Epic Fury:

President Trump told Axios on Thursday that he's seriously considering restarting major combat operations in Iran — including strikes that would be bigger than the ones carried out during Operation Epic Fury.

Why it matters: In a brief interview, Trump acknowledged that such a decision would have consequences and stressed he hasn't made a determination yet. ...

What he's saying: "I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it," the president said.

The same question pertains: Is Trump serious, or just hoping to get Iran to negotiate more honestly? In the same interview, Trump claims not to take talks seriously at the moment, as he's convinced that the IRGC regime has not yet paid a high enough price to come to the table:

Trump said the Iranians "want to negotiate" but are not ready to make a deal at the moment.

"They haven't received enough pain yet," he said.

Again, this could be a negotiating tactic. Vladimir Putin has used the escalate-to-deescalate strategy for well over two decades, even if it has turned into a trap for him in the last year or so as Ukraine's offensive capabilities have increased dramatically. However, remarks from Secretary of State Marco Rubio today give a stronger impression that Trump really isn't in the mood for dealmaking any longer, and sees the war differently now:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said President Trump demands “a head for an eye” in response to Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi’s social media post that stated, “Our defense doctrine is clear: eye for an eye.”

Rubio told reporters at the Association of Southeast Asian… pic.twitter.com/GCdNklVGwP

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 23, 2026

Rubio told reporters at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Manila, Philippines that Iran will be ready for a deal soon, “because the price they’re paying is very high.”

Other factors may be forcing Trump into a position of full-scale offensives in Iran. For one thing, Congress keeps trying to push Trump into retreat. The House voted 214-208 to invoke the War Powers Resolution to force Trump to begin a withdrawal of forces, or to ask Congress for a declaration of war. The Senate later blocked consideration of the bill, which Trump could veto even if the Senate passed it. It's a reminder nonetheless that the war will be a big issue in the midterms if kinetic operations are still ongoing, and especially if the Hormuz crisis is still keeping oil prices high. 

The problem Trump faces is that he has never sold the American public on the necessity of this action. He had an opportunity last week to address that gap, but instead chose to use his prime-time address almost entirely on election security. As Michael Brendan Dougherty writes at NRO, declining support for the war is creating pressures that may serve to limit Trump's range of action:

Back in February, I wondered whether President Trump intended full-on war with Iran, or strikes. I asked, “Does one announce a war at 3 a.m. on a Saturday in a Truth Social Post?” Well, if one thinks the war will be short and swift. In the weeks afterward, Trump gave various short timelines for our adventure in Iran. But, on the night it all began, the White House had done little to nothing to prepare and inform the public, which could only decipher administration intentions from news reports about movements of military equipment into the region. I said that it was “a war without the people,” who were “not prepared to shoulder major risks and sacrifices.” We were, once again, seeming to embark on the very foreign policy neoconservatives had criticized in the 1990s — trying to manage or change a regime from the air. But this time, most neoconservatives were cheering the action. Meanwhile, the public was bewildered by it.

Five months later, the polls show a public that is rendering a verdict and beginning to impose itself on events. The war is now unpopular and hemmed in — not by Congress or constitutional checks, but the people themselves. 

According to polling from YouGov, 57 percent say going to war with Iran was the wrong decision. Roughly a quarter of respondents say it was right. Roughly twice as many people disapprove of Trump’s management of the conflict as approve of it. The Economist is calling it the “least popular war since polls began.” Again, this is in five months. The Iraq War didn’t reach this until 2006.

This puts another form of time pressure on Trump. He lost three months attempting to cut deals with terrorists who never planned to take their obligations seriously. He has spent most of the last two weeks catching up on targeting assets that Iran has tried to reconstitute and now has expanded the strategic targeting to key infrastructure. If that doesn't show real results in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump has to escalate to show progress that could boost support for the war in the longer term. If that doesn't work, the other option would be to strike all of the strategic targets on our list and hope that will result in regime collapse. If we can't achieve that, then Trump may have no choice but to seize Kharg Island and force the Iranians to come to him to get their oil production back. 

In other words, Trump may be on the level with these threats. He can't afford another extended ceasefire without getting something tangible in return, and Trump knows that now.