Trump draws his sword against Iran! The top US military commander urgently reports on strike plans; will gold prices surge again?
2026-02-27 14:35:02
Tensions continue to escalate in the Eastern Bloc, and US President Donald Trump faces a crucial decision regarding whether to take military action against Iran. On Thursday (February 26), Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, briefed Trump in detail on various potential military options against Iran, a high-level military briefing that has drawn significant attention. Meanwhile, while indirect nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran in Geneva have made some progress, no substantive agreement has been reached, highlighting the complex situation of a push for both diplomatic channels and military pressure.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military forces in the Middle East, had its commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, personally brief President Trump on Thursday regarding potential military action against Iran. According to sources close to the president, the briefing was detailed, covering a range of scenarios from limited precision strikes to large-scale, sustained operations. The presence of General Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president's principal military advisor, throughout the briefing underscores its extreme importance and the high level of coordination. This marks the first time the commander of Central Command has given such a detailed briefing directly to Trump since the recent escalation of the U.S.-Iran crisis.
The timing of this briefing was particularly sensitive, coinciding with the third round of indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian representatives in Geneva regarding Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile development. While neither side announced any agreement, the Iranian Foreign Minister publicly stated that progress had been made in the negotiations and confirmed that technical consultations would continue next week in Vienna, Austria. This diplomatic development, occurring almost simultaneously with the military briefing, reflects the Trump administration's multi-pronged approach under its "talk while pressuring" strategy.
Within Trump's decision-making circle and among senior Republican officials, a relatively consistent private opinion has recently emerged: Israel should launch a preemptive strike against Iran, rather than the United States initiating direct hostile action. Several sources familiar with the matter told the media that this view has gained support among some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials. They believe that an Israeli-led initial strike could provide the United States with a political buffer and cover, especially given the pressure on Congress facing the midterm elections.
Trump repeatedly emphasized his campaign promise to "end wars, not start them," so a direct military intervention by the US military could provoke a domestic political backlash. Targeting Israel first would allow Trump to intervene if necessary, citing "fulfilling long-standing ally obligations and protecting Israel's security," aligning with decades of traditional US policy in the Middle East. However, this strategy also carries significant risks: if people in the Middle East perceive the action as an "Israeli-led attempt at regime change," it could trigger broader anti-American sentiment and undermine the US's moral standing in the Arab world.
Trump is known for soliciting opinions from various parties and weighing the pros and cons before making a final decision. Reports indicate he has expressed growing dissatisfaction with Iran's continued refusal to halt uranium enrichment and limit its ballistic missile program. Currently, the White House has not explicitly stated whether it will adopt the "Israel first" approach, but the US military has already made a large-scale deployment in the Middle East, including a large number of ships and fighter jets, all within an operational radius capable of directly threatening Iran. The possibility of joint US-Israeli action remains.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly responded that all media speculation was conjecture, and only President Trump himself knew the ultimate intentions. Analysts pointed out that presidents typically consider multiple political, military, and diplomatic factors comprehensively before making major military decisions, and there is currently no indication that he has locked onto a specific path.
Sources revealed that the military options being seriously evaluated by the Trump team fall into two main categories: one is a limited-scale precision strike, primarily targeting Iran's ballistic missile launchers and some nuclear facilities, aimed at sending a strong warning and forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table and accepting the core demands of the United States; the other is a larger-scale, longer-lasting comprehensive operation covering numerous targets, aimed at fundamentally weakening Iran's military capabilities and even creating conditions for more radical subsequent objectives (such as regime change).
Some analysts believe that even an initial strike led by Israel could serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, as leverage for diplomatic pressure, and on the other hand, effectively destroying or weakening Iran's air defense system, paving the way for potential deeper US intervention. However, experts generally warn that such actions are extremely risky. If it escalates into a protracted conflict, the 35,000 to 40,000 US troops stationed in the Middle East will become the primary targets of Iranian retaliation, leading to a sharp increase in casualties and political costs. A deeper issue is that even with significant resources, it is difficult to guarantee that a more US-friendly regime will ultimately emerge in Iran.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated publicly that Iran is working to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, which was attacked by the US military last June. Although Iran has not yet resumed uranium enrichment activities, the reconstruction efforts have clearly accelerated, demonstrating its ability to achieve a rapid breakthrough at some point in the future. Furthermore, Rubio warned that Iran is pursuing a dangerous path, attempting to develop long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland, which is considered a long-term potential threat to US homeland security.
Overall, US-Iran relations are at an extremely delicate and dangerous crossroads. On the one hand, the technical negotiations in Geneva and the upcoming one in Vienna offer a final window for a peaceful resolution; on the other hand, high-level military briefings, large-scale troop movements, and heated internal discussions about strike options all indicate that the Trump administration has not abandoned the option of using force. The course of events in the coming weeks will depend on the progress of negotiations, the extent of Iran's concessions, and Trump's final assessment of the risks and rewards. The Middle East and even the global landscape may be facing a major turning point.
The large-scale troop buildup in the Middle East, Trump's deadline for pressuring Iran, and high-level discussions about strike options have all directly fueled safe-haven demand. In addition to tensions with Iran, the uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariff policies has also strengthened gold's appeal as a safe-haven asset, further amplifying its upward momentum. Analysts believe that if the US-Iran conflict truly escalates (e.g., with limited strikes or broader action), gold prices could quickly surge towards $5,500 or even higher.
However, the Geneva/Vienna negotiations are still ongoing, and if there are any substantial progress or signs of a cooling down, gold prices may see a short-term pullback (profit-taking has already been seen recently). But the overall risks are skewed to the upside. With the military shadow still looming and geopolitical uncertainties dominating the market, gold remains strong and is more likely to rise than fall in the short term.
At 14:33 Beijing time, spot gold was trading at $5193.77 per ounce.
Background and Participants in High-Level Military Briefings
U.S. Central Command, which oversees all U.S. military forces in the Middle East, had its commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, personally brief President Trump on Thursday regarding potential military action against Iran. According to sources close to the president, the briefing was detailed, covering a range of scenarios from limited precision strikes to large-scale, sustained operations. The presence of General Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president's principal military advisor, throughout the briefing underscores its extreme importance and the high level of coordination. This marks the first time the commander of Central Command has given such a detailed briefing directly to Trump since the recent escalation of the U.S.-Iran crisis.
The timing of this briefing was particularly sensitive, coinciding with the third round of indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian representatives in Geneva regarding Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile development. While neither side announced any agreement, the Iranian Foreign Minister publicly stated that progress had been made in the negotiations and confirmed that technical consultations would continue next week in Vienna, Austria. This diplomatic development, occurring almost simultaneously with the military briefing, reflects the Trump administration's multi-pronged approach under its "talk while pressuring" strategy.
Voices within the Republican Party and the suggestion of "Israel leading the charge"
Within Trump's decision-making circle and among senior Republican officials, a relatively consistent private opinion has recently emerged: Israel should launch a preemptive strike against Iran, rather than the United States initiating direct hostile action. Several sources familiar with the matter told the media that this view has gained support among some Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials. They believe that an Israeli-led initial strike could provide the United States with a political buffer and cover, especially given the pressure on Congress facing the midterm elections.
Trump repeatedly emphasized his campaign promise to "end wars, not start them," so a direct military intervention by the US military could provoke a domestic political backlash. Targeting Israel first would allow Trump to intervene if necessary, citing "fulfilling long-standing ally obligations and protecting Israel's security," aligning with decades of traditional US policy in the Middle East. However, this strategy also carries significant risks: if people in the Middle East perceive the action as an "Israeli-led attempt at regime change," it could trigger broader anti-American sentiment and undermine the US's moral standing in the Arab world.
Trump's decision-making style and current mindset
Trump is known for soliciting opinions from various parties and weighing the pros and cons before making a final decision. Reports indicate he has expressed growing dissatisfaction with Iran's continued refusal to halt uranium enrichment and limit its ballistic missile program. Currently, the White House has not explicitly stated whether it will adopt the "Israel first" approach, but the US military has already made a large-scale deployment in the Middle East, including a large number of ships and fighter jets, all within an operational radius capable of directly threatening Iran. The possibility of joint US-Israeli action remains.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly responded that all media speculation was conjecture, and only President Trump himself knew the ultimate intentions. Analysts pointed out that presidents typically consider multiple political, military, and diplomatic factors comprehensively before making major military decisions, and there is currently no indication that he has locked onto a specific path.
Possible military options and their potential consequences
Sources revealed that the military options being seriously evaluated by the Trump team fall into two main categories: one is a limited-scale precision strike, primarily targeting Iran's ballistic missile launchers and some nuclear facilities, aimed at sending a strong warning and forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table and accepting the core demands of the United States; the other is a larger-scale, longer-lasting comprehensive operation covering numerous targets, aimed at fundamentally weakening Iran's military capabilities and even creating conditions for more radical subsequent objectives (such as regime change).
Some analysts believe that even an initial strike led by Israel could serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, as leverage for diplomatic pressure, and on the other hand, effectively destroying or weakening Iran's air defense system, paving the way for potential deeper US intervention. However, experts generally warn that such actions are extremely risky. If it escalates into a protracted conflict, the 35,000 to 40,000 US troops stationed in the Middle East will become the primary targets of Iranian retaliation, leading to a sharp increase in casualties and political costs. A deeper issue is that even with significant resources, it is difficult to guarantee that a more US-friendly regime will ultimately emerge in Iran.
Current nuclear posture and Iran's response
Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated publicly that Iran is working to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, which was attacked by the US military last June. Although Iran has not yet resumed uranium enrichment activities, the reconstruction efforts have clearly accelerated, demonstrating its ability to achieve a rapid breakthrough at some point in the future. Furthermore, Rubio warned that Iran is pursuing a dangerous path, attempting to develop long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland, which is considered a long-term potential threat to US homeland security.
In summary: Diplomatic channels remain open, but military shadows loom.
Overall, US-Iran relations are at an extremely delicate and dangerous crossroads. On the one hand, the technical negotiations in Geneva and the upcoming one in Vienna offer a final window for a peaceful resolution; on the other hand, high-level military briefings, large-scale troop movements, and heated internal discussions about strike options all indicate that the Trump administration has not abandoned the option of using force. The course of events in the coming weeks will depend on the progress of negotiations, the extent of Iran's concessions, and Trump's final assessment of the risks and rewards. The Middle East and even the global landscape may be facing a major turning point.
The large-scale troop buildup in the Middle East, Trump's deadline for pressuring Iran, and high-level discussions about strike options have all directly fueled safe-haven demand. In addition to tensions with Iran, the uncertainty surrounding Trump's tariff policies has also strengthened gold's appeal as a safe-haven asset, further amplifying its upward momentum. Analysts believe that if the US-Iran conflict truly escalates (e.g., with limited strikes or broader action), gold prices could quickly surge towards $5,500 or even higher.
However, the Geneva/Vienna negotiations are still ongoing, and if there are any substantial progress or signs of a cooling down, gold prices may see a short-term pullback (profit-taking has already been seen recently). But the overall risks are skewed to the upside. With the military shadow still looming and geopolitical uncertainties dominating the market, gold remains strong and is more likely to rise than fall in the short term.
At 14:33 Beijing time, spot gold was trading at $5193.77 per ounce.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
