This article examines fresh reports that the United States, alongside Israel, may be preparing major strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure, the possible strategic aims and risks of such operations, the mixed public signals from U.S. and Israeli sources, Iran’s stated response plans, and the broader implications for civilians, regional stability, and global markets.

New: US, Israel Reportedly Plan Major Strikes on Iran Energy Targets

Reports from U.S. sources indicate a potential shift in strategy toward Iran, focused explicitly on energy infrastructure rather than only political or military sites. Multiple anonymous officials have told reporters that the Biden-era hesitation is over and that leadership is considering a concentrated campaign to degrade Iran’s ability to produce and distribute power and fuel. If accurate, strikes aimed at generation and transmission could have immediate, visible effects on Iranian cities and industrial activity.

The reports say Israel has been notified and may coordinate with U.S. forces, though final authorizations were not confirmed by the officials who spoke to the press. One Israeli comment pushed back on the media narrative, insisting Israel had not been asked or informed about a decision to restart full military operations. In many conflicts, states keep plans close to the chest, but public denials still shape how allies and adversaries react.

The United States and Israel are planning what would be one of the harshest bombing campaigns to date against energy infrastructure targets in Iran, multiple sources told CBS News, with strikes possible throughout the weekend. 

There was some discussion about trying to conclude by the time financial markets open Monday because of concern about how the bombings will affect the U.S. and global economy, but an end point wasn’t locked in.

The Israelis have been notified and are coordinating with the United States, according to multiple U.S. sources. The president has yet to give the final ‘go’ orders for the strikes, the sources said.

That direct quote, reproduced exactly as issued in reports, highlights two practical concerns: operational tempo and economic effects. Planners reportedly considered finishing strikes before markets opened to limit market disruption, which tells you how connected modern military action is to global finance. A campaign targeting energy becomes a strategic lever precisely because it touches both civilian life and economies beyond the combat zone.

Iranian state-affiliated outlets and Revolutionary Guard-linked media are already telegraphing strong retaliation if attacks proceed. Tehran’s rhetoric mixes deterrence and threats aimed at both Israel and U.S. regional interests, warning of broad response plans that could include strikes on critical infrastructure. Those messages are designed to raise the stakes and to signal to regional players that escalation would not be limited to airfields or military depots.

The other side: Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, quoted a senior security official saying that U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure targets would be “an act of madness.”

• “We have prepared a broad response plan that includes strikes against the Zionist regime’s critical infrastructure and U.S. energy infrastructure in the region, and we are fully prepared to carry it out,” the Iranian security official told Tasnim.

That Tasnim passage is stark and uncompromising, and the specific line “an act of madness” was used verbatim by the agency source. Tehran’s threat to target both Israeli and American energy-related assets in the region shows how a campaign aimed at Iranian infrastructure could quickly broaden into attacks on third-party facilities. Any planner weighing strikes must factor in second- and third-order effects across the Middle East and on global energy flows.

Targeting energy infrastructure is different from striking a military depot. Disabling the grid or power plants affects hospitals, water treatment, transportation and daily life across major cities like Tehran. Those consequences are intentional levers for coercion, but they also risk civilian suffering and unpredictable political outcomes inside Iran. Military success in degrading capability does not automatically translate into the political outcomes policymakers hope for.

There is also the question of coordination with allies. Media accounts indicate the Israelis were notified, yet at least one official statement suggested no formal request had been made for Israeli participation. Nations often keep operational details quiet, but the optics matter: public Israeli distancing can complicate cooperation and may signal disagreements about timing or objectives. Whatever the reality, ambiguity about partnership gives adversaries opportunities for strategic messaging.

Anonymous sourcing is the dominant thread in these early reports; no formal announcement has been made and no American or Israeli public statement confirmed a final decision. That feeds uncertainty and drives speculation in capitals and markets. Intelligence, targeting, and damage-assessment work will determine whether a campaign can be limited to infrastructure without triggering wider conflict.

https://x.com/foxandfriends/status/2083543694544671138

Finally, regional partners and neutral actors will watch reactions closely. Iran has warned of broad reprisals, which raises the prospect of attacks on shipping, regional energy facilities, or allied bases. A campaign aimed at bringing Tehran to heel could instead produce a cascade of retaliatory moves, testing the resolve of the U.S. and its partners and exposing the fragile seams of regional security.

In other reporting, there are claims that Iran struck at .

Reports and denials will continue, and the situation could change quickly as decisions move from planning to action or are shelved. The coming days will show whether this is an operational shift or a strategic warning meant to deter further Iranian provocations.

Editor’s Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all.