Published On 1/5/2026
In light of the escalation of tension between the United States and Iran, attention is turning to the possible military scenarios that Washington is considering, in parallel with the continuation of the naval blockade, amid warnings of Iranian responses that may expand the scope of the confrontation in the region.
In this context, a report by colleague Ahmed Jarrar stated that the American administration, despite its bet on the effectiveness of the tightened naval blockade to push Tehran to accept an agreement on its terms, is not satisfied with this path, but rather keeps the military options under study.
US President Donald Trump had indicated that the siege is more effective than bombing, at a time when military preparations continue as an alternative option.
3 scenarios for Trump
According to what was reported by Axios, the Commander of the US Central Command, General Brad Cooper, is preparing to present three main scenarios to the US President, after a previous briefing on February 26 that, according to sources, contributed to making a subsequent military decision.
First scenario
The first option is to implement a wave of short, violent strikes targeting vital infrastructure inside Iran, including bridges, energy facilities, and power stations, with the aim of pressuring Tehran to return to the negotiating table and reverse its positions on the nuclear file.
Leaks indicate the possibility of using the “Dark Eagle” hypersonic missile, which reaches a speed of about 10 times the speed of sound, and has a range of approximately 3,500 kilometers, with the ability to evade missile defense systems.
Second scenario
The second option includes a military operation that may include ground forces to control parts of the Strait of Hormuz, with the aim of reopening it to commercial navigation.
This scenario re-introduces the use of US Marine units to carry out rapid landing operations, especially on the islands that Iran uses to provide cover fire to close the strait.
Third scenario
The third scenario is based on the introduction of special forces into Iran with the aim of seizing the stock of highly enriched uranium, an option that was previously discussed within the White House and Pentagon circles.
Iran threatens escalatory responses
On the other hand, Tehran is threatening a number of escalatory options if the war resumes, stressing its commitment to closing the Strait of Hormuz.
These options include targeting Israel and American bases in the region with missiles and drones, in addition to threatening energy facilities in countries allied with or supporting Washington.
Iran has also expressed its readiness to deal with any ground intervention, as its military leaders believe that the entry of American forces into its territory may give them an opportunity to inflict losses on it on “unfamiliar” territory.
The possibility of transferring the escalation to Bab al-Mandab remains on the table, in a move that may expand the scope of tension to other vital sea lanes.
The ‘war powers’ dilemma
The War Powers Act in the United States requires the president to obtain explicit authorization from the US Congress to continue military operations outside the country after 60 days.
By today, Friday, May 1, this deadline has effectively passed, putting President Donald Trump before a legal entitlement that requires either obtaining authorization from Congress or ending military operations.
This federal law was drafted in 1973 with the aim of restricting the power of the US President to involve the country in armed conflicts abroad.
To give Trump a mandate to continue the war against Iran, the House of Representatives and the Senate must pass a joint resolution in favor of continuing the war – by a simple majority in each – within this specified deadline.
However, US presidents have previously circumvented this law, using other means as a basis for continued military operations.
