U.S. Officials Tell Newspaper Top Commanders Back Resuming Large‑Scale Combat Operations Against Iran
A major U.S. newspaper, citing U.S. officials, reports that an official identified as Higseth and the head of U.S. Central Command have supported resuming large‑scale combat operations against Iran.
Senior U.S. military figures are reported to have argued for a return to large‑scale combat operations against Iran, according to a major U.S. newspaper that cites American officials. The report names an official identified as Higseth and the chief of U.S. Central Command as backing such a move.
Central Command oversees U.S. forces across the Middle East, from naval patrols in the Persian Gulf to air operations and bases supporting missions in Iraq, Syria and nearby states. If its top officer is supporting expanded operations against Iran, that signals a view within the military chain of command that limited responses and deterrence measures may no longer be seen as sufficient to counter threats from Tehran and allied groups.
The newspaper describes support for “resuming” large‑scale combat operations, language that points back to previous periods when the United States carried out sustained military actions aimed at degrading Iranian or Iran‑aligned capabilities. In more recent years, Washington has largely confined itself to targeted strikes against specific militia assets after attacks on U.S. forces, alongside non‑military tools such as sanctions and cyber operations.
A shift to broader operations would increase the tempo and risk level of missions for U.S. forces, raising exposure to Iranian missiles, drones and naval tactics like harassment of ships. For Iran’s leadership, such a change in U.S. posture would reinforce long‑standing claims that Washington is preparing for confrontation, potentially strengthening officials who argue against compromise over nuclear activities or support for regional armed groups.
Host countries for U.S. bases around the Gulf would face heightened political pressure at home and abroad if those facilities became launch sites for large‑scale strikes. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would likely see higher risk from mines, drones and missiles, with energy markets responding quickly to any sign that flows could be disrupted.
Inside the United States, moving toward major operations against Iran would trigger a political debate over objectives, costs and legal authority. The president, currently Donald Trump, would have to weigh commanders’ views against public reluctance for another extended military campaign and the possibility that carefully limited plans could spiral.
Signals to watch now include more detailed follow‑up reporting on the newspaper’s account, questions from members of Congress to the Pentagon, any noticeable repositioning of U.S. naval and air assets within the Central Command area, and changes in public rhetoric from both Washington and Tehran. Concrete steps such as revised rules of engagement, expanded approved target lists for Iran‑linked forces, or explicit presidential orders would show whether commanders’ preferences are starting to shape policy.
Sources
- OSINT