Iran has responded to President Donald Trump’s latest threats with a warning that any renewed conflict would be longer and broader than the last, and that Washington would not control how it ends. Trump told reporters at his Florida residence on Saturday that the United States still had “one or two sites” to “take care of” in Iran, singling out Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear complex near Natanz, and claiming the US could “do that in 10 minutes”.
Iran’s army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia replied on Sunday that “a potential future war could last longer than previous conflict, and the American president would not be in a position to dictate the timing or the conditions of its conclusion”. The exchange comes as diplomatic efforts led by Qatar continue, with Iranian officials acknowledging a change in Washington’s tone but insisting that Tehran’s conditions must be met before any talks or reopening of the Strait of Hormuz can proceed.
No Geographic Limits
The most significant signal of how Iran intends to fight a renewed war came from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who reportedly told a gathering of senior military commanders that Iran’s response to any aggression would be “immediate, effective” and “without any geographical limits”. Revolutionary Guards spokesman Hossein Mohebbi echoed this on Sunday, stating that “in a conflict with America, there are no geographical limitations; a vast theatre has been defined for inflicting damage upon the enemy”. This language suggests that Iran would not confine its retaliation to its own territory or to military targets in the immediate region.
Instead, it would likely activate the full network of allied forces it has cultivated across the Middle East, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi militias while also striking US bases, assets, and interests wherever they are reachable. The Supreme Leader’s order to update target lists of “tangible and intangible assets of the United States and Israel” indicates that Iran is preparing a campaign that could extend to cyberattacks, attacks on maritime shipping, and strikes on Gulf infrastructure, including the undersea cables and oil facilities that Iranian security officials have previously threatened.
The Pickaxe Mountain Problem
Trump’s focus on Pickaxe Mountain highlights a military dilemma rather than a simple target. The facility is believed to be buried 80 to 100 meters beneath solid granite, deeper and harder than the Natanz and Fordow sites that the US and Israel previously struck. The US’s most powerful bunker-buster, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, is designed to penetrate 18 meters of concrete or 61 meters of earth, but experts are skeptical it can defeat 100 meters of granite. This means that even a sustained bombing campaign might not physically destroy the facility.
Instead, the US could attempt to disable it by striking tunnel entrances, ventilation shafts, and access roads, effectively sealing whatever is inside without destroying it. Iran has denied any nuclear activity at the site, but the ambiguity serves Tehran’s purposes: it allows Iran to maintain a latent capability while denying the US a clear, verifiable target whose destruction could be proclaimed as a victory.
The Diplomatic Track and the Post-Election Window
The threats are unfolding alongside a genuine, if fragile, diplomatic process. Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei confirmed on Saturday that he had received a letter from Vice President JD Vance and that Washington’s “tone has completely changed,” describing it as a “positive sign”. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said talks with Qatari mediators were underway on a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days if the US meets Iran’s conditions, which include lifting sanctions, ending the naval blockade of Iranian ports, releasing frozen assets, and recognizing Iran’s designated shipping route through the strait. However, Araghchi also stated that Iran remains “prepared for both defence and diplomacy” and that its armed forces are “more prepared for war than any time before”.
The timing of any new US strike is widely expected to fall after the November 3 midterm elections, when Trump would face fewer domestic political constraints. Trump has promised not to launch new strikes before the vote, and US media have reported that he is considering action on November 4 or shortly thereafter. If that happens, Iran’s warnings suggest the response would not be a proportionate, contained retaliation but a region wide escalation designed to impose costs that Washington cannot easily absorb.