US President Donald Trump aims to keep everyone guessing over Iran action

For nearly two weeks, Donald Trump appeared on the verge of intervening in Iran.

From his threat to “rescue” protesters if Iranian authorities used violence on January 2 to his promise this week that “help is on the way,” the US president has taken a firm stance.

On Tuesday, a CBS reporter covering the president’s visit to Detroit asked how Mr. Trump would react if Iranian authorities began executing prisoners.

Iranian activists said Erfan Soltani’s family was told that the 26-year-old shopkeeper was sentenced to death for participating in protests.

Stating that his end game in Iran is “to win”, the president said, “If they do something like this, we will take very strong action.”

Throughout Wednesday, signs were growing that U.S. military intervention might be imminent.

American, Qatari and British personnel working at the giant Al-Udeid air base in Qatar were being relocated.

Last June, US embassy staff and civilians in Saudi Arabia were told to remain vigilant, recalling similar instructions hours before US bombers attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Amid reports of airspace being closed and flights being cancelled, it appeared the coming hours would bring news of American attacks. The only question was how big it looked.

But speaking to reporters at the White House in the afternoon, Trump suddenly changed his tune.

“We were told that the killings in Iran have stopped,” he said. “And there are no plans for executions… They told me that from a reliable source.”

The president did not explain the nature of good authority, other than to say that the information came from “very important sources on the other side” and that the United States was given “a very good explanation by people who know what’s going on.”

So has the moment of crisis passed, or is this just a pause?

Trump did not explicitly rule out military intervention. He said he would “monitor and see the process” before deciding what to do next.

There are many voices in Washington calling for caution.

Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement: “The military action taken by the United States under the pretext of helping these protesters risks doing the exact opposite: silencing an organic movement, strengthening the regime’s rhetoric, and harming civilians.”

Reports from the Gulf have suggested that some of Washington’s allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, also harbor serious concerns about the possible impact of US military intervention.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have found themselves targets of Iranian retaliation in the past.

In 2019, Iran fired drones and cruise missiles at Saudi Arabia, hitting key oil facilities and temporarily halving the kingdom’s oil production. Iran has denied involvement, saying the attack was carried out by the Houthis in response to Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen.

Saudi allies, including the United States, France, Germany and Britain, agreed that Tehran was responsible.

On June 23 last year, Iran fired a series of medium-range ballistic missiles at Al Udeid in response to a US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities the previous day.

Tehran telegraphed its intentions in advance and there were no casualties, but the warning was clear: Iran might attack.

Gulf monarchies, which have sought to strengthen relations with Iran in recent years, fear the kind of widespread regional instability that a major US military operation could trigger.

As always with President Trump, the goal seems to be to keep everyone guessing.

After the successful military operation to remove Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela, it is fitting that the leadership in Tehran thinks the president can do something equally spectacular in Iran.

“Evocative news, use of raw force and minimal casualties appeal to Trump,” Andrew Miller, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Biden administration, writes in Foreign Affairs magazine.

“And an attack on Iran could meet all three.”

But the president’s desire to “win” in Iran may have stopped him.

The regime in Iran is resilient, battle-hardened and capable of weathering repeated storms. By comparison, Venezuela is little more than a banana republic, despite its vast oil reserves.

The thought of finally conquering the Islamic Republic after decades of intense hostility and conflict must be extremely appealing, especially for a man who boasts that the US military has never been stronger.

But in Washington, that goal, no matter how desirable, still seems distant. Air strikes could cause major damage to Iran’s security apparatus and nuclear and missile programs, but they are unlikely to “save” Iranians demonstrating against their government.

In recent days, unnamed US officials quoted in the press have hinted at a range of more covert options, including cyberattacks designed to undermine the regime’s effectiveness and bolster support for protesters.

Some of these tactics were used to great effect during the blitzkrieg operation to capture Nicolas Maduro in Caracas.

But without a clearly defined end goal, it is difficult to see such methods having a long-term impact.

Such a bold move by the opposition, apparently fearful of the regime’s raw, indiscriminate show of force, seems unlikely, at least for now.

Miller said Trump’s threats should end unless the president stands firm. Protesters naming streets after the US president and pleading for US intervention suggests he may have dangerously raised hopes.

“Bluffing when lives are at stake is not only unpresidential, it is inhumane,” Miller writes.

Given US media reports, unsanctioned by the Pentagon, that an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has been told to redeploy from the South China Sea, it is entirely possible that Donald Trump is keen to maximize his options.

But the basic question remains: Will he do it or not?