# Trump, Netanyahu Signal Iran Campaign Not Over *Sunday, May 10, 2026 at 4:04 PM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-05-10T16:04:12.762Z (3h ago) **Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East **Importance**: 9/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/3375.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: On 10 May 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu separately stated that Iran remains a live military target despite claiming major battlefield successes. Around 14:50–16:00 UTC, both leaders stressed that enriched uranium, remaining targets and Iranian proxies may still be subject to further strikes. ## Key Takeaways - U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu both say military operations against Iran may continue. - Trump claims Iran is “militarily defeated” with about 70% of identified targets already hit, but suggests up to two more weeks of strikes could follow. - Netanyahu emphasizes remaining enriched uranium stockpiles, enrichment sites, ballistic missile capabilities and Iranian proxies as unresolved threats. - Trump highlights use of U.S. space-based surveillance to monitor Iranian nuclear assets, threatening to destroy any attempt to access them. - Coordinated messaging signals intent to maintain coercive pressure on Tehran and shape post-conflict negotiations from a position of strength. Statements released between roughly 14:20 and 16:00 UTC on 10 May 2026 show the United States and Israel presenting a coordinated narrative that the current phase of the Iran conflict has severely degraded Tehran’s capabilities but has not concluded the campaign. U.S. President Donald Trump publicly asserted that Iran is "militarily defeated" and claimed that U.S. strikes have already destroyed about 70% of pre‑selected targets. However, he underlined that this does not mean operations are over, indicating the United States "could go in for two more weeks" to attack remaining sites. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed that framing, arguing that the "war with Iran is not over" because Tehran still retains enriched uranium, functioning enrichment facilities and ballistic missile programs, as well as an extensive network of regional proxies. Netanyahu said that while much of this infrastructure has been "degraded," significant work remains to fully neutralize the perceived threat. Both leaders focused heavily on Iran’s nuclear assets. Trump stated that Iran’s enriched uranium, described as being buried under rubble, is under continuous surveillance by U.S. space-based capabilities associated with the Space Force. He claimed that U.S. systems are able to detect any approach to the site, promising that Washington would "blow it up" if anyone came near. This is a direct threat not just to Iranian personnel but potentially to third-country actors attempting to assist Iran’s recovery efforts. Netanyahu, for his part, placed nuclear and missile issues within a broader security architecture that includes Iranian support for non-state proxies across the region. By framing the conflict as a campaign against both Iran’s strategic weapons and its proxy network, Israel is signaling that battlefield success inside Iran will not, by itself, end the confrontation. The key players in this dynamic are the U.S. executive branch, the Israeli government, and Iran’s political and military leadership. Trump’s narrative that several "layers" of Iranian leadership have been eliminated—his "A, B and probably C team"—reinforces an information campaign to portray Tehran as weakened and disorganized. At the same time, Iranian officials have publicly asserted that they remain ready to respond to further U.S. and Israeli actions, and that their forces are on heightened alert. This messaging matters because it shapes expectations about escalation, negotiations, and deterrence. By declaring Iran militarily defeated yet threatening further strikes, Washington and Tel Aviv seek to retain escalation dominance while deterring retaliatory moves. They are effectively telling Tehran that any attempt to reconstitute capabilities or move nuclear material will be met with immediate military action. Regionally, these statements will heighten anxiety among Gulf states, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, where Iranian-linked proxies operate and where Iran may choose asymmetric responses. Globally, the rhetoric reinforces perceptions of strategic unpredictability, with explicit threats to use real-time space surveillance to cue lethal force. This could unsettle energy markets, shipping, and foreign investment across the broader Middle East. ## Outlook & Way Forward In the near term, indicators to watch include fresh strike packages on remaining Iranian targets, especially suspected nuclear-related or missile-production facilities, and any observable surge in U.S. or Israeli air and naval deployments in the region. Analysts should monitor Iranian air defense posture, cyber activity and missile units for signs of imminent retaliation, as well as any public or clandestine moves by Tehran to disperse remaining high‑value assets. Diplomatically, both leaders’ statements suggest they anticipate a negotiation phase but want to enter it from an overwhelming position of strength. Expect intensified back-channel engagement involving European states, Gulf monarchies and possibly intermediary countries such as Qatar or Oman. The credibility of Trump’s assertion that the U.S. can resume intensive strikes at will will be central to coercive bargaining. Strategically, there is a risk that prolonged pressure, especially on nuclear sites, could push Iran to adopt more aggressive asymmetric tactics, including proxy attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests or maritime disruptions. Conversely, if Iran calculates that its conventional deterrent has been largely neutralized, it may reluctantly accept tighter constraints in exchange for sanctions relief and security assurances. The balance between these pathways will depend on internal Iranian politics, the resilience of command-and-control structures after leadership losses, and the ability of outside powers such as Russia and China to shape Tehran’s choices.