Trump is searching for an endgame to the Iran war

WASHINGTON— After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations for a quick end to the conflict, with US intelligence and defense officials expressing doubts that it will succeed in overthrowing Iran’s government and destroying its nuclear program through military means.

This outcome was forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, two US officials told The Times. These analysts had collectively warned the administration about the pitfalls of a full-scale war with Iran before President Trump decided to move forward.

The specific military objectives of Operation Epic Fury, laid out at the beginning of the war, are still seen as achievable by the Pentagon as U.S. and Israeli strikes make steady progress deteriorating Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, drone program and navy.

But U.S. intelligence’s prewar assessment that an airstrike was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic remains valid; The intelligence community now raises suspicions that the attack had more political impact than radicalizing a government already committed to destroying Israel and harming the United States.

Unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a dangerous ground invasion, concerns have grown that Iran’s new government will make the vital strategic decision to build a bomb after the war. And the White House is now grappling with a new mission imperative created by the decision to launch the war itself, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of the world’s daily supply of oil and natural gas liquids, to vital shipping traffic.

The foreign policy strategy that Trump clearly laid out as his playbook for the conflict—lashing out at the government, cutting off its leadership, and hoping those left will ask for mercy—didn’t work; Tehran is looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize the pain of the US administration.

Trump downplayed the conflict as a “trip” that would end “very soon” and also called it a war, promising to take the time he needed to “finish the job.” He insists that it will end when he decides to end it.

It is still possible that Trump’s declaration that the hostilities are over will result in a ceasefire, as in June last year Trump demanded an end to the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. But Iranians also have the right to vote, and senior leaders in the Islamic Republic have made clear they plan to keep fighting this time, whether Trump wants it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced the deployment of an additional reconnaissance unit of 2,500 Marines to the region to support the effort.

“Starting a war is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them doesn’t happen with a few tweets.

“We won’t let you go until you admit your mistake and pay the price,” he added.

It’s a harsh lesson for a president whose decade in public life was marked by his uncanny ability to distort reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it will leave in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to acquire nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If he continues the war,” Pauly added, “there is a risk of the kind of mission that could eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a press release last week, the White House said: “From the opening hours of this historic campaign, the goals were clear: to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, destroy its navy, cut off its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism never acquires nuclear weapons.”

But at the beginning of the operation, Trump made a promise to the Iranian people that by the end of the US-Israeli war, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly disrupted that a rare generational opportunity would arise for them to take back their government.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that your hour of freedom is near,” Trump said. “Stay protected. Don’t leave your house. It’s too dangerous out there. Bombs will fall everywhere. When we’re done, take over the government. It’ll be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations.”

Trump insisted that he should have a say over the next ruler after assassinating the country’s longtime religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the days that followed. But Iran’s clergy and militant system challenged the president by electing Khamenei’s son, a man seen as more hostile to the West than his father.

The Israeli leadership also identified regime change as the goal of the war. But even their officials say a serious leadership change in Tehran is unlikely.

Trump will continue to insist on the “unconditional surrender” of the Iranian government, later saying that this demand will be met by the incapacitation of the Iranian military.

Reiterating his belief that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade: in an interview on Friday He said he would order an end to the conflict “when I feel it, when I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it constantly changes its goals. Some of them are achievable, such as weakening Iran’s conventional power. Some are not, such as choosing Iran’s next leader,” said Ray Takeyh, an expert on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations. he said.

“Mixed messages have led to confusion within the country,” Takeyh added, “and the oil shortages and lack of planning for removing Americans from the region suggest that process and personnel may actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint US-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: reducing Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to suppress democratic forces within the country, and finally encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the end game because the regime gets the votes,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic and domestic pressure to eliminate its war-making and repressive capabilities, and whether this will lead to a takeover, division or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict could destroy Iran’s nuclear program is an equally serious question in Washington; here, officials are debating a stark list of options for how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve fissile material that Tehran could use to make nuclear weapons. This threat is seen as more serious under the rule of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent that it was legitimate, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. However, very few attacks were directed against nuclear-related targets – almost certainly because those who survived last June’s attacks were impervious to air strikes,” said James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the United States and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground attack, Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build bombs.”

Pauly agrees that it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear program with air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has about 440 kilograms (about 970 pounds) of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some compelling negotiations are reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters at the Pentagon last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered few details about what options the United States might offer to counter or neutralize this attack. accessible uranium stockIt was enriched close to the class of weapons buried last year in a US operation aimed at eliminating the nuclear threat.

He suggested diplomacy might be required to secure supplies.

“I will say that we have a number of options, including if Iran decides to give them up,” he told reporters, “and of course we would welcome that.”