Iran’s Larijani Warns of 3–4 Year War as Trump Weighs Wider Iran Campaign
Iranian political figure Mohammad Javad Larijani says the country should brace for a 3–4 year conflict, urging economic and security readiness without declaring war inevitable. In Washington, President Donald Trump convened top national security officials in the Situation Room to review plans for a broader military campaign against strategic targets in Iran, signaling that both sides are planning for a longer, riskier confrontation.
Planning horizons on both sides of the U.S.–Iran confrontation are starting to stretch from days to years. In Tehran, veteran political figure Mohammad Javad Larijani has publicly urged Iran to prepare for a conflict lasting three to four years. In Washington, President Donald Trump has brought his national security team into the Situation Room to review options for a wider campaign against strategic targets inside Iran.
Larijani, a prominent conservative voice with long experience in Iran’s political system, said the country should ready itself for the possibility of a prolonged war, calling for greater economic and security preparedness amid what he described as heightened tensions. He stopped short of predicting that such a war was certain but framed multi‑year conflict as a scenario for which Iran must be materially and psychologically ready. His comments point to a leadership mindset that treats the current exchange of strikes not as an aberration, but as a potential opening phase.
Across the table, Trump is examining how far to expand U.S. operations. According to detailed U.S. media reporting, the president convened a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday with Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director Richard Grenell and other senior officials to review plans for a broader military campaign against strategic targets inside Iran. The deliberations reportedly go beyond the current U.S. strikes around the Strait of Hormuz and southern Iran.
Publicly, Trump has already signaled an aggressive posture. In a television interview, he said U.S. attacks on Iran would continue until he decided they should stop, and has even floated the idea that he would consider seizing Iran’s Kharg Island—home to critical oil export infrastructure—if Tehran were sufficiently weakened. Those statements do not constitute formal policy, but they set a tone that planners in Tehran, Gulf capitals and energy markets cannot ignore.
For ordinary Iranians, the prospect of a three‑ or four‑year confrontation is a warning that sanctions, strikes and instability could become a long‑term condition rather than a temporary crisis. That would deepen pressure on an economy already under strain, test the resilience of state subsidies and social services, and leave border communities exposed to more frequent military activity. For U.S. forces and regional allies hosting them, it implies years of heightened alert, missile defense operations and political blowback.
Strategically, Larijani’s remarks and Trump’s internal planning both point in the same direction: neither side is counting on a quick resolution. A long conflict would have profound implications for global energy flows, shipping insurance and defense spending. Iran has already warned that if its oil and gas exports remain disrupted, it could target other regional energy routes. Trump’s consideration of attacking or even seizing key Iranian energy infrastructure, if transformed into policy, would be understood in Tehran as a direct threat to the regime’s economic lifeline.
The broader pattern is of a confrontation that has outgrown the familiar cycle of discrete incidents and rhetorical flare‑ups. A conflict measured in years forces governments and markets to reprice risk for everything from Gulf tanker routes and regional arms races to domestic politics in countries that must live with U.S. bases or Iranian proxies on their soil. A war you plan for over three or four years is a war that reshapes budgets, alliances and public expectations.
A memorable way to understand the stakes is this: a one‑week flare‑up changes headlines, but a four‑year confrontation changes where countries build pipelines, bases and factories—and where families decide it is safe to live. That is the scale of decision‑making Larijani and Trump are both implicitly invoking.
The next indicators to watch include whether Trump publicly endorses any of the broader campaign options reportedly presented in the Situation Room; whether Iran moves to harden or disperse key assets like Kharg Island; signs of accelerated defensive deployments by Gulf states; and economic measures in Tehran indicating it is positioning for long‑term sanctions and military pressure rather than a short crisis. Any shift from talk to concrete moves against major energy infrastructure would mark a decisive escalation toward the years‑long conflict both sides are beginning to describe.
Sources
- OSINT