Dramatic new video shows US strikes raining down hell on 300-mile stretch of Iran’s coast as Trump issues stark warning
The US military has released dramatic footage of intensive strikes along a 300-mile stretch of Iran's coastline near the Strait of Hormuz, as President Donald Trump urged Iranian citizens to "rise up and fight" against the ruling regime. Trump claimed the US now had "almost total control" of the strategically vital strait and insisted Iran's economy was "totally collapsing," dismissing suggestions that the military pressure was intended to force Tehran back to the negotiating table.
On Tuesday, more than a dozen strikes hit Iranian radar systems and military assets, with state media reporting attacks on Qeshm Island and the port cities of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it retaliated with a ballistic missile strike on Camp Titin, a US Marine base in Jordan. Trump made his comments in a post on Truth Social, in which he also dismissed earlier reporting on the strikes as "Fake News."
- US released footage of strikes along Iran's coast near Hormuz Strait
- Trump urged Iranians to "rise up and fight," claims economy collapsing
- Iran says it retaliated with missile strike on US base in Jordan
New here? Start with this
Roughly 300 miles of Iran's coastline, running along the Strait of Hormuz, has become the focus of US military strikes, and the Pentagon has released video footage of the attacks. The strait is one of the world's most important shipping routes for oil, so fighting there has global economic implications, not just regional ones.
President Trump has been vocal about the campaign, claiming the US now holds "almost total control" of the strait and that Iran's economy is collapsing, while also calling on ordinary Iranians to rise up against their government. Iran, in turn, has responded through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of its armed forces that has previously targeted US military installations in the region, including bases in Jordan.
The confrontation follows a long-running standoff between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear programme, regional influence and control of key waterways. Trump has dismissed reports questioning the strikes' effectiveness as "Fake News," reflecting ongoing disagreement over how the conflict is being portrayed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the administration's approach argue that sustained military pressure on Iran's coastal defences and naval assets is a legitimate response to a regime that has long sponsored proxy attacks on American forces and threatened international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. They contend that degrading radar systems and military infrastructure reduces Iran's capacity for retaliation and coercion, that visible strength can deter further escalation more effectively than diplomacy alone, and that encouraging Iranian citizens to oppose their government reflects genuine sympathy for a population living under an authoritarian theocracy rather than a call to violence.
The case against
Critics argue that large-scale strikes across a 300-mile stretch of sovereign Iranian territory represent a dangerous escalation that risks a wider regional war, particularly given Iran's demonstrated willingness to retaliate against US bases such as the one in Jordan. They contend that urging Iranian civilians to "rise up" against their government is reckless, since it may endanger those who heed the call without any assurance of US support, and that claims of "almost total control" of the strait and economic collapse should be treated with scepticism given the incentive to overstate success and dismiss independent reporting as "Fake News" rather than engage with it.
Americas Business Celebrity Economy Entertainment Markets Middle East World