President Donald Trump said the ceasefire with Iran is on “massive life support,” as retired U.S. commanders and national security experts are increasingly split whether Washington should resume military operations against Tehran or avoid what critics warn could become another prolonged Middle East conflict.
“I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support,” Trump told reporters Monday. “Where the doctor walks in and says, ‘Sir, your loved one has approximately a 1% chance of living.’”
Trump also dismissed Iran’s latest response to a proposed agreement as “a piece of garbage,” amid reports the White House is reviewing military options should negotiations collapse.
Retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, former national security adviser under Trump, said he believes Iran’s leadership is unlikely to make the concessions Trump considers necessary for a deal.
WHITE HOUSE WARNS IRAN AGAINST BALKING AT DEAL: TRUMP READY TO ‘UNLEASH HELL’
“I think the Iranian leadership and IRGC are unwilling to make the kind of concessions that President Trump thinks are at the minimum,” McMaster told Fox News Digital, referring to Iran’s hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“President Trump always wants a deal,” he added. “But he’s not going to sign up for a bad deal.”
The emerging debate now centers on a core question facing Washington: whether additional military pressure could force Iran to abandon its nuclear and missile ambitions, or whether renewed strikes would deepen a regional conflict without producing decisive results.
Retired Vice Adm. Mark Fox, former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said he believes the current ceasefire and diplomatic track are unlikely to force Iran to back down.
“I really cannot envision anything other than a full return to combat operations,” Fox told Fox News Digital. “The only thing that they will respond to, I think ultimately, is force.”
Fox argued the U.S. military remains capable of reopening and securing commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz despite ongoing Iranian threats against vessels transiting the waterway.
HORMUZ CHOKE POINT PERSISTS AS IRAN HALTS OIL TRAFFIC DESPITE TRUMP CEASEFIRE
“This is a militarily obtainable objective,” he said, outlining a strategy involving guided missile destroyers, attack helicopters, drones and expanded aerial surveillance to create a protected maritime corridor through the Strait.
Fox acknowledged the U.S. Navy is smaller than it was during the 1980s tanker wars, but argued American forces still possess the capability to secure the chokepoint if Washington commits enough naval assets and persistent monitoring operations.
“It’s not easy,” Fox said. “But the geography is fixed.”
He described a possible strategy that would rely on destroyers, drones and attack aircraft to create what he called an “unblinking eye” over the strait, allowing U.S. forces to identify and neutralize Iranian speedboats, drones and anti-shipping threats before they can strike commercial vessels.
Fox also warned against allowing Iran to preserve leverage over Hormuz while continuing to advance its missile and nuclear programs.
“If not now, when?” he said. “If they had a nuclear weapon, they would use it.”
EXPERTS WARN IRAN’S NUCLEAR DOUBLE-TALK DESIGNED TO BUY TIME, UNDERMINE US PRESSURE
Fox, who also signed onto a recent policy paper by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed the report’s argument that Iran is using negotiations to buy time while preserving its military capabilities.
The paper was authored by several retired senior U.S. military officials and national security experts, including retired Gen. Chuck Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command and retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, former deputy commander of CENTCOM, argued the current ceasefire and diplomatic track “cannot reliably compel Iran” to meet U.S. demands and warned Tehran was seeking to “drag out talks, erode U.S. resolve, and use the time to strengthen itself.”
The report called for expanded military operations targeting Iran’s maritime capabilities, missile infrastructure and internal coercive apparatus while avoiding broad attacks on civilian infrastructure that could trigger wider regional escalation.
But not everyone agrees that renewed military action would produce a better outcome.
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and longtime critic of expanded U.S. military interventions, warned that calls to “finish the job” ignore the realities exposed during the recent fighting.
“To ‘finish the job,’ as they say, is irrational,” Davis told Fox News Digital. “It’s illogical, and it violates any kind of military principle.”
KEITH KELLOGG URGES US TO ‘FINISH THE JOB’ AGAINST IRAN BY SEIZING ISLANDS, STRANGLING ECONOMY
Davis argued that despite thousands of strikes and weeks of fighting, Iran retained significant missile and maritime capabilities.
“We couldn’t knock them out with 14,000 targets hit,” he said. “Why does anybody think that going back another time is going to have a different result?”
He described Iran’s geography, dispersed missile infrastructure and asymmetric naval tactics as creating what he called “a militarily unsolvable problem.”
“The only thing left is a diplomatic outcome,” Davis said.
The disagreement reflects a broader divide emerging in Washington as officials weigh what comes next if negotiations fail.
Supporters of renewed military action argue Iran is weaker than it has been in decades and that stopping now risks allowing Tehran to regroup, rebuild its missile arsenal and preserve leverage over one of the world’s most important energy choke points.
Critics counter that even extensive U.S. and Israeli strikes failed to fundamentally break the regime’s control or eliminate its military capabilities, raising the risk that further escalation could drag the United States into another drawn-out regional conflict with uncertain results.
