Trump threatens to strike Iran \"very violently\" and reveals US operations against its oil amid escalating tensions in the Gulf

Washington's Message\n\nWashington – Said Arikat – 10/6/2026\n\nIn a new escalation that threatens to expand the confrontation in the Gulf region, US President Donald Trump hinted at launching harsh attacks against Iran if an agreement is not reached to end the current tension, asserting that the United States \"will attack them very strongly\" and announcing, at the same time, that Washington has carried out continuous operations targeting Iranian oil, a move that would raise widespread questions about the nature of increasing American involvement in the conflict.\n\nTrump's statements came during his remarks to reporters at the White House, where he linked his stance to what he described as Iranian provocations, referring to the downing of an \"Apache\" helicopter in the Strait of Hormuz, which he considered an additional reason to intensify pressure on Tehran.\n\n"The US President said that his country \"will attack Iran very violently\" if a peace agreement is not reached, adding that the Iranian strike on the American helicopter represents a dangerous development that cannot be ignored. He also reiterated his assertion that Iran would be struck in the coming hours, which heightened fears that the region was approaching an open military confrontation that could go beyond the limited skirmishes witnessed in recent months.\n\nBut the most intriguing aspect of Trump's statements was his revelation of American operations directly targeting Iranian oil. He said that the United States \"is extracting millions of barrels of Iranian oil every night,\" asserting that these operations have been ongoing for a long time, and that Tehran only recently realized their scale.\n\nHe added that the removal of these huge quantities of Iranian oil contributed, in his opinion, to keeping global oil prices within levels ranging between $85 and $90 per barrel, considering that prices would have jumped to $250 per barrel had it not been for these measures. However, the US President did not provide any additional details about the nature of these operations, the parties carrying them out, or the legal basis on which they are based.\n\nThese statements open the door to a series of political, legal, and military questions. The public acknowledgment of operations targeting the resources of a sovereign state could be interpreted as a shift from traditional economic sanctions policy to more direct forms of pressure and coercion, which could prompt Tehran to respond by various means, whether in the Gulf or through other regional arenas.\n\nThese developments come at a time when the region is experiencing an unprecedented state of tension, amid increasing warnings that any miscalculation could lead to a widespread confrontation involving international shipping lanes and vital energy facilities, which threatens the global economy and puts markets before highly turbulent possibilities.\n\nObservers believe that Trump's rhetoric reflects an attempt to increase maximum pressure on Iran in order to push it to make political and security concessions. However, past experiences have shown that the policy of military threat does not necessarily lead to quick results, but may push the targeted parties to further rigidity and adherence to their positions.\n\nTrump between a show of force and the risks of involvement\n\nThe US President finds himself facing a highly complex equation. On the one hand, he wants to appear as a decisive leader capable of imposing American will through military and economic force, and on the other hand, he realizes that any widespread confrontation with Iran could turn into a costly war whose course or outcomes are difficult to control. Verbal escalation gives him internal political momentum and sends deterrent messages to adversaries, but at the same time, it raises expectations and limits his room for maneuver. If he does not translate his threats into concrete actions, he may face accusations of backing down, but if he carries them out, he may find the United States mired in a new conflict whose repercussions cannot be predicted.\n\nThe dilemma of deterrence and the limits of American power\n\nTrump's statements reveal a deeper crisis related to the effectiveness of American deterrence in the Middle East. The United States possesses tremendous military superiority, but it faces an adversary that has repeatedly proven its ability to use unconventional tools to prolong confrontations and exhaust its opponents. Therefore, threatening to strike Iran does not necessarily mean achieving a quick political or strategic victory. Rather, any military operation could open the door to reciprocal responses that threaten American forces deployed in the region and endanger global economic interests. Here lies the real dilemma: the ability to start a war does not mean the ability to end it on the required terms.\n\nBetween promises of peace and the realities of escalation\n\nTrump has always presented himself as a president who seeks to end wars and avoid involvement in long conflicts, but recent developments place him before a clear contradiction between this rhetoric and the field reality heading towards further escalation. The higher the level of military threats, the more difficult it becomes to return to the negotiating table without political losses. Allies and adversaries alike are monitoring the consistency of American policy and its ability to combine pressure and compromise. Therefore, Trump seems to be at a critical crossroads today: either the success of pressures in imposing an agreement that spares him war, or sliding into a confrontation that may reshape the balance of power in the region and leave long-term effects on the United States' standing and its global role.